The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart Oh please, let's not play squirming little word games... the Constitution may not have "affirmatively endorsed" slavery, but it certainly codified the acceptance of its existence and practice into law, whether it was a compromise or whatever. And I'll see your Northwest Ordinance (1787) with the Fugitive Slave Act, which did in fact use the word 'Slave'. The act made it a crime to assist escaped slaves, made it legal to recapture escaped slaves -- even in the Northwest Territories -- and denied escaped slaves any legal rights, including any children born to slave mothers...

OK, I think I have finally thought of a correct way to word what I believe may been the original intent, and that is that some of the framers thought that the slaves were "culturally inferior", many argue that they are to this very day.

Quote by: Sonart Except, of course,when it comes to the perfectly clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

Obviously it is not perfectly clear, or there could not not exist this vast void between our interpretations.

Quote by: Sonart It's called an analogy, and it compares others who 'don't see a lot of wiggle room' on moral issues and have equal difficulty accepting that the writers of their particular ideological dogma seemed to find a great deal of 'wiggle room'.

Nevertheless, what we have is a legal, binding document that was ratified by enough people to make it law. Nevermend the fact that you don't respect that fact.

Quote by: Sonart Or perhaps it's that they didn't actually see "their end of the contract" the same way you do.

Again, I am not attempting to absolve them of responsibility, or put them on a shrine, I merely want the legal documents respected, and the law applied accordingly. They owe us that much, or to swing for their high crimes, sedition, and treason.

Quote by: Sonart In the case of southern secession, "they" would be the landed oligarchy, right? Because as many here would surely point out, only about 5% of Southerners actually owned slaves, yet slavery was clearly the reason for the southern states seceding... Declaration of Causes of Seceding States Georgia -- "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property,..." Mississippi -- "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." South Carolina -- "These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. " Texas -- [i]"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"[/]

That only illustrates the point where I differed from the framers, and proves my point about pandering to the monied interests.


No positive change ever occurs from pandering to monied interests, yet what are you doing here but pushing their agenda to topple the constitution.

Quote by: Sonart Apparently libertarian idealism extends to allowing the wealthy haves the liberty to run roughshod over everyone else, while defining themselves as the main "constituents" of government policy.

I guess you have links to prove this allegation?


I thought not. That's another one of those constructs of your fertile imagination.

Quote by: Sonart I very seriously doubt it. Once you set a precedent of solving disputes by simply stomping your feet and revolting from the government, what's to stop anyone with a beef from doing the same, no matter how major or petty?

I not revolting from the government, Im revolting from special interests, and the corporate takeover. Careful study will show that I'm not in violation of the Constitution, or Constitutional law. It's not like I'm drinking under prohibition.

Quote by: Sonart You got that from my agreeing with GHook that Southern secession was a bad idea? Hmmmm, methinks thou dost protest too much... and probably regretting the number of times you've advocated that the time seemed ripe for an armed rebellion against the U.S. Government.

No, I thought you were cheering my alleged desire for violent revolution.

[another day]

I find it hilarious that so many people believe they would not have seen blacks as inferior if they had lived in these times. That they are somehow so much more nobler that they would have instantly seen how it was wrong. Get real! This was the way of life back then, and you would have likely seen nothing wrong with it if you had lived back then. Blacks were thought of more as animals then men, it was just the popular perception... Was it wrong? Yeah, but the idea that everyone in that time period who kept slaves was "EVIL" is just ridiculous.

[The Decider]

Quote by: GHook93 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.

For argument's sake, let me agree with this statement. Where did Jefferson, the author of "all men are created equal," ever support equal political rights for non-whites and women? Show that "original intent" included universal sufferage, service in the armed forces, and other benchmarks of US citizenship.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Nevertheless, what we have is a legal, binding document that was ratified by enough people to make it law. Nevermind the fact that you don't respect that fact.

I respect it a great deal. I also respect that, with time, the historical evolution of our nation has made many of the original intentions of those people obsolete... even misguided ...to the point where enough other people felt compelled to amend the original document. For instance, since the institution of slavery was actually 'sanctioned' by the Constitution, the 13th Amendment repealed that sanctioning.

Others, like the 2nd Amendment, were simply made moot by changes with the country itself... specifically the successful rise of the Federal military and the resulting disappearance of state militias.

Quote by: Milton Bradley That only illustrates the point where I differed from the framers, and proves my point about pandering to the monied interests.

It strikes me that Chris is making a solid case that the framers were just as adept at pandering to the monied interests as any of your "Usual Suspects" today. It's just that the major monied interest back then was slave powered plantation agriculture.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I not revolting from the government, Im revolting from special interests, and the corporate takeover. Careful study will show that I'm not in violation of the Constitution, or Constitutional law. It's not like I'm drinking under prohibition.

Again, are you feeling guilty about something??? I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your contention that had the South succeeded in seceding, that would have been the end of it, of countries splitting up.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I guess you have links to prove this allegation?

I would think it's self evident. Libertarians are opposed to all government regulation of the excesses of capitalism... er, excuse me... of free enterprise. You used the phrase earlier, "to better serve their constituents".

Politicians don't pass laws reforming and regulating businesses because they're altruistic reformers, or looking for ways to bug their biggest contributors, the monied interests. They pass reform laws -- regulations -- because THEIR CONSTITUENTS -- the PEOPLE -- HAVE DEMANDED IT, on pain of being turned out of office.

Therefore, legislators who ignore the will of the people's demands for safer products or workplaces or environment or whatever are therefore obviously pandering to the monied, corporate interests.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Obviously it is not perfectly clear, or there could not not exist this vast void between our interpretations.

By way of another analogy, it's fascinating how the Religious Right reads the First Amendment and sees...

"Congress shall make... mumblemumblemumble ,,,religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The same way that others read the Second Amendment and see...

"A well... mumblemumblemumble mumblemumblemumble mumble ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Quote by: Another Day I find it hilarious that so many people believe they would not have seen blacks as inferior if they had lived in these times. That they are somehow so much more nobler that they would have instantly seen how it was wrong. Get real!

That's Chris' point, AD... America in 1800 was at a crossroads in history. Britain had already renounced and outlawed slavery as immoral, and the question of it's morality was the center of a great deal of open debate here, of which our country's Founders WERE WELL AWARE.

They KNEW that the question of slavery's morality was in considerable doubt, yet they chose to pander to Big Agriculture for the sake of greater economic stability.

.

[rez]

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: -

Of course they knew it was hypocritical. They also knew it was way to radical to suggest making slavery illegal.

They didn't write in the constitution that all men, but black people are created equal for a reason.

[johnwk]

Quote by: The Decider Here's the "wiggle"--slaves were considered 3/5 of a man.

With reference to our “founding fathers“ let us acknowledge the truth and facts regarding slavery, that after the Revolutionary War and the working people of America gained their independence from foreign domination [the real culprit of slavery on American soil] the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, quickly moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery! For example, the people of Vermont took this immediate action in their 1777 declaration of rights, which declared "no...person born in this country, or brought here over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice".

Likewise, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 declared that "all men are born free and equal" and was used by the court a few years after its adoption to legally forbid any person to be held as a slave.

And let us not forget that in 1787, the Northwest Ordinance stated "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

By the year 1788 all the states north of Maryland , except New York and New Jersey, had legislated to extinguish slavery, and by 1804 the remaining two northern states [ N.Y. and N.J.] had put slavery to rest.

The truth is, the issue of slavery was a topic of heated debate during the Convention of 1787. On August 21 Luther Martin moved to vest power in Congress to tax or even to forbid the importation of slaves. Eventually a provision was agreed upon to penalize the Southern slave holding states by the wording in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 by which the slave holding states did not receive full representation based upon population size. It should also be noted that a power was granted to Congress by the adoption of our Constitution allowed Congress to tax the importation of slaves, and then forbid the importation of slaves after the year 1808.

Unfortunately, for whatever the reason may be, and in spite of historical facts, there are those among us who find it necessary to distort our nation’s past and continue to misrepresent the 3/5th reference in our Constitution, saying it made blacks 3/5th of a person, when that very provision was a penalty upon slave holding states which denied them full representation in Congress.

As a side note, and with reference to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and the particular part which states: “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” the intention was an agreed upon rule determining each states’ voting strength in Congress Assembled, and also was intended to determine each states’ share of a tax, if Congress should rely upon internal taxation and call upon the people within the various state borders in a general tax among the States to fill the national treasury, and, especially if the general tax among the states was based upon wealth [property, real and personal].

The two rules involving apportionment, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:


State`s Population
_________________X House Members (435)=STATE’S VOTES IN CONGRESS

population of U.S.



State`s population

------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


It should also be noted that during the ratification, the above stated intentions were again stated on various occasions, e.g.: Mr. George Nicholas said: "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked that "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255.

Bottom line is, the intended protection was that if imposts, duties [external taxes] and assorted internal excise taxes which Congress was authorized to lay were found insufficient to fill the national treasury, and a general tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress’s exigencies, and especially in a wealth based tax being used as a primary source to fill the national treasury, those states carrying the lion’s share of such a tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress!


JWK

“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act

[grandpa]

Quote by: johnwk With reference to our “founding fathers“ let us acknowledge the truth and facts regarding slavery, that after the Revolutionary War and the working people of America gained their independence from foreign domination [the real culprit of slavery on American soil] the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, quickly moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery!

There were movements to abolish slavery, but the underlying social constructs stood remarkably unchanged.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rez Of course they knew it was hypocritical. They also knew it was way to radical to suggest making slavery illegal.

A) How was it way too radical if Britain had already outlawed slavery in 1772 and France was on the way to outlawing it in 1794, and ...

B) Given that we'd just taken the radical action of fighting a war in which we defeated the mightiest power on earth in order to embark on the most radically new form of government the world had ever seen - a constitutional democratic republic, how does being 'radical' become a problem?

Quote by: johnwk Unfortunately, for whatever the reason may be, and in spite of historical facts, there are those among us who find it necessary to distort our nation’s past and continue to misrepresent the 3/5th reference in our Constitution, saying it made blacks 3/5th of a person, when that very provision was a penalty upon slave holding states which denied them full representation in Congress.

I'm sorry, johnwk, but it's you who seems intent on misrepresenting facts in order to rationalize the truth... which is that the founders - despite your own clear evidence that the issue was hotly debated and morally opposed by many Americans and outlawed in many states - pandered to the agricultural interests of the south by writing a clear sanction of the institution of slavery into our U.S. Constitution.

While seeking to replace the 'indelicate' word "Slave" with the benign "all other persons", Article I, Section 2: who it meant when it stated that representation and taxation would be based on "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."

Despite your rambling explanation of tax apportionment, you've failed to explain, since we apparently misrepresented it, exactly what was meant by "three fifths of all other persons."

If it's not free persons, or indentured servents, or native Americans... exactly who does that leave among those populating the 13 states? And why would they represent only three fifths of a person?

Nor have you accounted for 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."

Nor have you accounted for the Fugitive Slave Act that was signed into Federal law by President Washington.

.

[rez]

Quote by: Sonart . A) How was it way too radical if Britain had already outlawed slavery in 1772 and France was on the way to outlawing it in 1794, and ...

It is raising another issue that could potentially split the opinions of the congress.
The idea is to focus on one issue at a time.

And what makes you think you can compare the policies of Britain and France to America?

B) Given that we'd just taken the radical action of fighting a war in which we defeated the mightiest power on earth in order to embark on the most radically new form of government the world had ever seen - a constitutional democratic republic, how does being 'radical' become a problem?

I guess radical is not an objective term that can be used then. What is radical to someone may not be radical to another.

Slavery was just another issue that needed to be addressed on its own without having to be mixed together with war and independence.

I

[johnwk]

Quote by: grandpa There were movements to abolish slavery, but the underlying social constructs stood remarkably unchanged. Grandpa h.

Your comment is too generalized to make any sense.

JWK

[The Decider]

Quote by: johnwk With reference to our “founding fathers“ let us acknowledge the truth and facts regarding slavery, that after the Revolutionary War and the working people of America gained their independence from foreign domination [the real culprit of slavery on American soil] the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, quickly moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery!

No, John, let us acknowledge your cherry-picking from our nation's early history on black-white relations. Even in abolitionist New England black and white men were not equals. They didn't have the right to vote until decades later and when they did it was severely restricted. They couldn't serve in state militias or the Continental Army. They were in every way less than a white man in the eyes of state and federal law. That was the "original intent." Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott confirmed the founders' racist original intent. Whether slavery existed or not, blacks were unequal to whites in early America. The 3/5 person compromise was simply an arbitrary number that did not greatly bother the Founding Fathers from New England who never intended to vote or fight beside black men, freeborn or slave. Fifty years of debate and occasional bloodshed with slave states eroded that position. The Civil War destroyed it. After 1865 no one wanted to remember the overt racism and inequality that motivated our Founding Fathers. And, in fact, the very requirement of a 13th and 14th amendment is acknowledgement of the Founder's initial errors.

For that reason, making "original intent" the benchmark for modern American government is such folly. The Constitution is a living document, not the American equivalent of The Ten Commandments.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rez And what makes you think you can compare the policies of Britain and France to America?

How else does one determine what is or isn't radical without comparing it to what exists elsewhere? Radical compared to what?

Quote by: rez Slavery was just another issue that needed to be addressed on its own without having to be mixed together with war and independence.

So therefore the bottom line is that the "Founders" were not apostles annointed by gawd, but politicians not a whole lot different from todays, willing to compromise their moral ideals in order to pander to the "Corporate Interests" of the day in order to get something resembling the greater good.

Quote by: the Decider For that reason, making "original intent" the benchmark for modern American government is such folly. The Constitution is a living document, not the American equivalent of The Ten Commandments.

Bingo!

.

[lsbskins1]

The Founders did sanction slavery. Semantic arguments aside, the answer lies in the effect of their words and the effect of their laws. Lawyers and politicians have been playing the same game for centuries. Carefully crafted language in contracts and legislation has shielded many a man (and woman) from the wrath of the masses (or the voters, or the stockholders, or the business associate) while allowing the designers of that language to accomplish the very ends they are attempting to conceal. Anyone who does not see that is simply admiring the Emperor's Non-Existent Clothes.

And liberals who refuse to pretend that the Founders were Christ-like in their perfection are not attempting to tear down our counrty: they are simply willing to love the Founders (as Al Frankin says) like adults love. We do not need to view our "heroes" as beyond reproach to love them. We love them warts and all. We do not need to view our country as exemplified perfection to love it. We love it honestly, as it is and was. We attempt to make it grow and become what it should and can be by seeing it's faults and attempting to correct them. Pretending those faults do not exist serves no positive purpose. It allows a rot to grow and consume what is good and right.

[johnwk]

johnwk posted:

With reference to our “founding fathers“ let us acknowledge the truth and facts regarding slavery, that after the Revolutionary War and the working people of America gained their independence from foreign domination [the real culprit of slavery on American soil] the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, quickly moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery!

Quote by: The Decider No, John, let us acknowledge your cherry-picking from our nation's early history on black-white relations. Even in abolitionist New England black and white men were not equals. They didn't have the right to vote until decades later and when they did it was severely restricted. They couldn't serve in state militias or the Continental Army. They were in every way less than a white man in the eyes of state and federal law. That was the "original intent." Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott confirmed the founders' racist original intent. Whether slavery existed or not, blacks were unequal to whites in early America. The 3/5 person compromise was simply an arbitrary number that did not greatly bother the Founding Fathers from New England who never intended to vote or fight beside black men, freeborn or slave. Fifty years of debate and occasional bloodshed with slave states eroded that position. The Civil War destroyed it. After 1865 no one wanted to remember the overt racism and inequality that motivated our Founding Fathers. And, in fact, the very requirement of a 13th and 14th amendment is acknowledgement of the Founder's initial errors. For that reason, making "original intent" the benchmark for modern American government is such folly. The Constitution is a living document, not the American equivalent of The Ten Commandments.

The only folly here is your vitriolic postings and switching of the subject matter. Too bad for you that you have an aversion to historical facts as it clouds your thinking.

As to our Constitution being a “living document”, the only pulse our Constitution may be said to have is when the people breath new life into that document via its amendment process__ you know, that consent of the people thing?

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[BobbyO]

There is nothing in the constitution that allows for slavery!

In fact, the Constitution declares that by 1808 importation of slavery would be abolished All the states by 1800 had done so anyhow (though South Carolina re-legalised it for a couple of years prior to 1808). The general belief in 1787 was that slavery was a dying institution, that it ought to die, but over time. Just about all the founding fathers placed in their wills the freeing of their slaves. It was later generations who began to argue for slavery as integral part of life, and a positive good, views which jefferson et. al would have abhorred.

[BobbyO]

Even in abolitionist New England black and white men were not equals. They didn't have the right to vote until decades later and when they did it was severely restricted.

The exact opposite is in fact true. Blacks had just about the same rights in northern states as whites. In later decades were the restrictions placed. Even blacks in southern states had far more rights than they would later.

Supreme Court decisions like Dred Scott confirmed the founders' racist original intent.

The Dred Scott decision was a perversion of "original intent" and is in the mold of the "living Constitution." That is why is was so polarising. It in fact declared a constitutional right to own slaves, which certainly is nowhere in the document.

The 3/5 person compromise was simply an arbitrary number that did not greatly bother the Founding Fathers

A compromise, to be true.

from New England who never intended to vote or fight beside black men, freeborn or slave.

Blacks fought in state millitias and in the Continental Army.

After 1865 no one wanted to remember the overt racism and inequality that motivated our Founding Fathers. And, in fact, the very requirement of a 13th and 14th amendment is acknowledgement of the Founder's initial errors.

It was actually to correct the Dred Scott decision.

[The Decider]

Quote by: johnwk The only folly here is your vitriolic postings and switching of the subject matter. Too bad for you that you have an aversion to historical facts as it clouds your thinking.

I'll take this meaningless comment as a concession.

Quote by: johnwk As to our Constitution being a “living document”, the only pulse our Constitution may be said to have is when the people breath new life into that document via its amendment process__ you know, that consent of the people thing? JWK

You mean the consent of the slave owners? Right? Guess what, the North was willing to wait for the political process to play out--in the American Midwest and West. The new territories were, mostly, anti-slavery. The South saw the handwriting on the wall after Lincoln and the Republicans won the 1860 election--new free states and more anti-slavery legislation. They attacked Fort Sumter rather than wait for their "peculiar institution" to come under the authority of a hostile US Congress.

In any case, the Framers were not interested in equal rights for blacks, free or slave. Those rights were purchased with blood a half century later. and enforced with federal action a century after that. Libertarians were irrelevant through it all. And still are in regards to black civil rights history.

[The Decider]

Quote by: BobbyO The exact opposite is in fact true. Blacks had just about the same rights in northern states as whites. In later decades were the restrictions placed. Even blacks in southern states had far more rights than they would later.

Back this up with evidence, Bobby. Blacks didn't have the right to vote in Vermont until well past 1800. Maine too. And Massachusetts. Therefore they were not "full citizens" as in "all men are created equal" at the time the Constitution was written.

Quote by: BobbyO The Dred Scott decision was a perversion of "original intent" and is in the mold of the "living Constitution." That is why is was so polarising. It in fact declared a constitutional right to own slaves, which certainly is nowhere in the document.

No. Dred Scott used the absence of anti-slavery language, states' rights provisions, the PROPERTY RIGHTS language in the Constitution as the bases for its ruling. Blacks were not considered equal with whites at the time the Constitution was written. Not politically or in any other way. That Vermont had abolished slavery in no way impacted South Carolina's decision to adopt the practice. States' rights. Small government. The Libertarian credo.

Quote by: BobbyO Blacks fought in state millitias and in the Continental Army.

No, Bobby. Prior to American Independence some blacks fought in some state militias with the understanding that America would make them equal citizens. George Washington himself put the kaibosh on that small hope in 1775 when the Continental Army was formed. He banned blacks. Nice, huh? After some blacks fought for this nation at Lexington and Concord, they were eliminated from national service. The trend of exclusion continued at the Continental Congress and thereafter until the Civil War.

African American Registry: Blacks barred from continental army!

[Chris the Chees]

Quote:

<