The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Chris the Chees This is simply wrong. The Atlantic Slave Trade was at its peak in the late 18th century and policy makes were well aware of that fact, which is why they abjectly refused to do anything about the trade. Not to the colonies. into the carribean and south aamerica to be sure. You provide a bizarre view of the constitution. It did not say that the slave trade would be abolished in 1808, rather that congress had no authority to ban the slave tarde until the 1st of January 1808. It did not provide the means for abolition; it directly prevented it.

fair enough. It allowed states the authority. And so they abolished it, with the formal abolition in 1808.

[johnwk]

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. 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. A compromise, to be true. Blacks fought in state millitias and in the Continental Army. It was actually to correct the Dred Scott decision.

Excellent response! It’s amazing how some continue to make up history with a specific intent to paint our “founding fathers” as a monolithic slave holding group. And, when confronted with documented historical facts showing the contrary, they resort to artful rhetoric to panhandle their hateful views of our nation’s founding.


JWK



"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson

[johnwk]

Quote by: The Decider I'll take this meaningless comment as a concession. 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.

Still painting our founding fathers with a very broad brush?


As I previously documented:

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! 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.

JWK

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chris the Chees 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.

The constitution also didn't provide for privacy, but that was created by case law in the constitution. The same with having a US bank or giving the Federal courts the authority to hear the federal question. Slavery was a hot topic at the time and could have torn the nation. Instead of condemning it outright or endorsing to outright it did neither. The fugitive slave clause was an endorsement, rather it was a ill-conceived was of keeping the peace along the lines of the Northwest compromise. New countries take centuries to perfect, America was still a new-born at the time. However, we got it right eventually and I believe we are one of the best societies to race and religious minorities in the world. Again only 2 countries have affirmative action and America is one of them! I mean do you see any countries out their were a racial minority that makes up only 10% of the countries looks to be the front-runner to the white house? There are none!

[GHook93]

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... ...and signed into law by President George Washington, 1793, and affirmed 60 years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

The fugitive slave was a compromise that was an attempt to keep the peace between the North and South at the time when the country couldn't afford a civil war. This issue eventually let to the nations spliting and a civil war, but it was to be argued at the different date.

The fugitive slave law was about property right, it was bigoted, but it was a compromise. Looking at the scant legislative history, it was a compromise to avoid conflict that the new nation couldn't afford.

Dred Scott was was not a fugitive slave! His "master" brought him to the North as his slave, since his "Master" was in the army. Scott sued for his freedom, since he was legally brought to the North. The court tossed the case out, since it would deny the Defendant his property rights! Consequently this verdict made the civil war inevitable!

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider 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.

Irrelevant, we are talking about black slaves and not about the treatment of women!

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BobbyO the Constitution declares that by 1808 importation of slavery would be abolished

Sorry, I thought I knew the Constitution... could you quote the Article and Section where this appears, please.

Quote by: BobbyO The Dred Scott decision was a perversion of "original intent" and is in the mold of the "living Constitution."

Not hardly. Dred Scott clear affirms Article IV, Section 2: clause 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." and the Fugitive Slave Act 0f 1793.

Quote by: BobbyO It in fact declared a constitutional right to own slaves, which certainly is nowhere in the document.

To the contrary, both Article IV, Section 2; Clause 2 and Article I, Section 2; Clause 3 clearly sanction the institution of slavery. Slavery needn't be specified as a 'Right' to be declared constitutional, since the Constitution did, in fact, sanction it. That's an arbitrary criteria you've invented for the sake of arguing.

Quote by: BobbyO Blacks had just about the same rights in northern states as whites.

Just about???

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

So have gays... our military freely uses them when desperately needed in our various wars, but that doesn't mean they have equal rights.

Quote by: BobbyO It (13th Amendment) was actually to correct the Dred Scott decision.

No, it mostly repealed Article 1, Section 2; Clause 3 and Article IV, Section 2; Clause 2.

Quote by: johnwk Still painting our founding fathers with a very broad brush?

As opposed to what? Painting them with a broad brush of their infallability?

Quote by: johnwk As I previously documented:

So what, John? All you've done is reiterate that the writers of the Constitution were aware that slavery was a controversial moral issue, yet chose to officially sanction it in the federal Constitution anyway.

Quote by: GHook The fugitive slave was a compromise that was an attempt to keep the peace between the North and South at the time when the country couldn't afford a civil war.

Yeah, I know... I've already said that. Except it wasn't the South, it was the land owning Plantation owners who ran the South. They were the ones whose wealth was tied up in maintaining institutional slavery. For the 95% of Southeners who didn't own slave, it didn't matter one way or another.

In other words, they (the founders) were pandering to big business.

And one could argue that, based on that issue, it would have been far better to have split the country into two countries then, based on the will of the people, rather than let the issue fester and boil until 4 score years later, when splitting the country apart was no longer an acceptable option.

Quote by: GHook Dred Scott was was not a fugitive slave! His "master" brought him to the North as his slave, since his "Master" was in the army. Scott sued for his freedom, since he was legally brought to the North. The court tossed the case out, since it would deny the Defendant his property rights! Consequently this verdict made the civil war inevitable!

"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." Article IV:

You're quibbling about whether someone held as a slave under the laws of one state becomes free when his owner was forced to move to another state. What's the definition of "escaping"? The Constitution, according to the Taney Court, said no.

Quote by: GHook Consequently this verdict made the civil war inevitable!

It was inevitable anyway, Hook. Do you doubt the South would have seceded even earlier had the Taney Court ruled the other way?

Quote by: GHook Irrelevant, we are talking about black slaves and not about the treatment of women!

It's not completely irrelevent. It certainly makes clear that moral relativism is an accepted reality and confirms the Constitution's necessity to be a flexible "Living Document".

.

[BobbyO]

Sorry, I thought I knew the Constitution... could you quote the Article and Section where this appears, please.

I addressed it elsewhere.

Not hardly. Dred Scott clear affirms Article IV, Section 2: clause 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." and the Fugitive Slave Act 0f 1793.

As already pointed out, Dred Scott was not a fugitive slave. His owner voluntarily brought him to a free state.

To the contrary, both Article IV, Section 2; Clause 2 and Article I, Section 2; Clause 3 clearly sanction the institution of slavery. Slavery needn't be specified as a 'Right' to be declared constitutional, since the Constitution did, in fact, sanction it. That's an arbitrary criteria you've invented for the sake of arguing.

The Constitution sanctions the death penalty, it sanctions the Navy. It doesn't mandate such laws or institutions.
The Dred Scott decision said slavery was a constitutional right, that could not be abolished, by any state. That view was seen as positive by the South, because by 1857 slavery was viewed as a positive good for society. That was a marked change from the 1780s where Southerners could and did vote to ban slavery in the northwest territories, and where freeing of slaves upon one's death was an "enlightened" step to take.

No, it mostly repealed Article 1, Section 2; Clause 3 and Article IV, Section 2; Clause 2.

Those clauses merely stated Congress had authority in some fashion, over the existing institution. It can also issue letters of marques and reprisal. Its a moot power since Congress has long since ratified the abolition of privateering.

[johnwk]

Quote by: johnwk Still painting our founding fathers with a very broad brush?

Quote by: Sonart . As opposed to what? Painting them with a broad brush of their infallability?

Your brush creates a monolithic picture of our founding fathers and ignores those who worked quite diligently to end slavery after they gained their independence from England and which I documented above.

Quote by: johnwk As I previously documented:

Quote by: Sonart . So what, John? All you've done is reiterate that the writers of the Constitution were aware that slavery was a controversial moral issue, yet chose to officially sanction it in the federal Constitution anyway.

Sanctioned it in the federal Constitution? Seems to me the truth is the federal Constitution penalized the slave holding States by denying them full representation in Congress. In addition, provision was also made in the Constitution you referred to granting power to Congress to tax the importation of slaves, and then forbid the importation of slaves after the year 1808.

Your sermon here, like that of Rev. Wright‘s, is one which fails to give credit to those who worked to end the injustice of slavery and pretends our “founding fathers”, as a monolithic group, worked to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.

Quote by: Sonart . It's not completely irrelevent. It certainly makes clear that moral relativism is an accepted reality and confirms the Constitution's necessity to be a flexible "Living Document".

Our founding fathers provided the flexibility you mention by adding an amendment process so future generations would be free to amend the Constitution to accommodate changing times. Unfortunately, there are those among us who prefer to ignore the amendment process in which the consent of the governed must be obtained and would have our Courts provide flexibility to carry out the personal whims and fancies of whomever is in political power.

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.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart It's not completely irrelevent. It certainly makes clear that moral relativism is an accepted reality and confirms the Constitution's necessity to be a flexible "Living Document".

Dammit Sonart, keep the criticisms accurate, will ya?


I don't know any Libertarians here that claim the Constitution should be carved in stone, like the Ten Commandments, only that it be ammended according to it's own very clear proceedure.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BobbyO I addressed it elsewhere.

Fer krisakes, Bobby... quit playing games and just post the damn source. Where in the Constitution does it say Slavery will end in 20 years? Or where on this board did you address it?

Quote by: BobbyO As already pointed out, Dred Scott was not a fugitive slave. His owner voluntarily brought him to a free state.

So? He was still legally the slave of his owner by the laws of the state in which he was purchased, and the Constitution said ownership didn't change with the slaves location. It made no mention of the owners location.

Quote by: BobbyO Sanctioned it in the federal Constitution? Seems to me the truth is the federal Constitution penalized the slave holding States by denying them full representation in Congress.

To the contrary, Bobby. Think about it... Southern states received MORE representation, because of millions of blacks who had no vote and no wages, yet added 3/5 more bodies, thus requiring MORE representation.

Quote by: BobbyO The Constitution sanctions the death penalty, it sanctions the Navy. It doesn't mandate such laws or institutions.

Yeah... so?

That would be called "damning with faint praise", simply because they didn't mandate that there HAD to be slavery.

Quote by: BobbyO The Dred Scott decision said slavery was a constitutional right, that could not be abolished, by any state.

No it didn't, Bobby...

"Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham [1850]. In that case, the slave had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio, with the consent of the owner, and aftewards brought back to Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition, as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when they were bourght back into that State, and not of Ohio; and that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgement of a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly before the court, and the decision that this court had no jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of the case.

So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that charcter, his staus, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois..." -- Dred Scott v. Sanford

Quote by: BobbyO Those clauses merely stated Congress had authority in some fashion, over the existing institution. It can also issue letters of marques and reprisal. Its a moot power since Congress has long since ratified the abolition of privateering.

Except the 13th Amendment didn't address letters of Marque and Reprisal, BobbyO. Only slavery, which the Constitution had previously, but could no longer, sanction.

Quote by: johnwk Your brush creates a monolithic picture of our founding fathers and ignores those who worked quite diligently to end slavery after they gained their independence from England and which I documented above.

We're doing nothing of the sort. We're pointing out a fact... that whatever controversy may have surrounded the institution of slavery, the Founding Fathers chose to formally sanction the institution within the nation's founding legal document, the U.S. Constitution. I have to assume that, had they chosen, they could have written the document without any references whatsoever to slavery.

Quote by: johnwk Your sermon here, like that of Rev. Wright‘s, is one which fails to give credit to those who worked to end the injustice of slavery and pretends our “founding fathers”, as a monolithic group, worked to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.

I'm a Democrat, John. I probably know better than you who worked to end the injustice of slavery and it wasn't the writers of the U.S. Constitution. Even abolitionist New Englander John Adams, who said, “Consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest of happiness” managed to consent to Slavery.

You're argument seems to be that I haven't given credit where it was due to those opposed to slavery. But that's not the point... the point is what's in the Founding Document, the U.S. Constitution. Everything else is interesting sidebars and anecdotes about how it was achieved, with abolition being the apparently minority view.

Quote by: johnwk 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.

Is this your quote or someone elses? Whatever, it's usually the exact opposite that's true... from the contemporary denial that the 2nd Amendment was completely about maintaining citizen militias of "the People" instead of a standing Army or denial that the 1st Amendment meant to keep government completely out of personal religious belief.

.

[BobbyO]

[quote]

Quote by: Sonart . Fer krisakes, Bobby... quit playing games and just post the damn source. Where in the Constitution does it say Slavery will end in 20 years? Or where on this board did you address it?

Oh, I never said that. I conceded that the Constitution barred Congress from banning the importation of slaves prior to 1808 (I originally stated the Constitution banned the importation after 1808). Still, southern states, on their own ,had banned the slave trade by 1800.

So? He was still legally the slave of his owner by the laws of the state in which he was purchased, and the Constitution said ownership didn't change with the slaves location. It made no mention of the owners location.

The Dred Scott decision did not limit itself to this.

To the contrary, Bobby. Think about it... Southern states received MORE representation and tax benefits, because of millions of blacks who had no vote and no wages, yet added 3/5 more bodies, thus requiring MORE representation.

That quote, which you attributed to me, was not mine.

"Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham [1850]. In that case, the slave had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio, with the consent of the owner, and aftewards brought back to Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition, as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when they were bourght back into that State, and not of Ohio; and that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgement of a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly before the court, and the decision that this court had no jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of the case. So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that charcter, his staus, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois..." -- Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott decision also ruled that blacks could not be citizens, and that laws restricting slavery were unconstitutional.

Except the 13th Amendment didn't address letters of Marque and Reprisal, BobbyO. Only slavery, which the Constitution had previously, but could no longer, sanction.

Yes, it abolished slavery as it had to- the Dred Scott decision had made slavery a constitutional right. That was certainly not the understanding of the founders.

We're doing nothing of the sort. We're pointing out a fact... that whatever controversy may have surrounded the institution of slavery, the Founding Fathers chose to formally sanction the institution within the nation's founding legal document, the U.S. Constitution. I have to assume that, had they chosen, they could have written the document without any references whatsoever to slavery.

They recognised it, to be sure. In 1787, most states had slavery. Had they chosen not to place any reference to slavery, that would have indicated an indifference to the institution. Instead,

I'm a Democrat, John. I probably know better than you who worked to end the injustice of slavery and it wasn't the writers of the U.S. Constitution.

True enough. For the most part, they saw it as a problem that would someday be solved.

It was the Republican Party who ended the injustice of slavery. The Southern Democrats being the party of the big planters.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: BobbyO The Dred Scott decision did not limit itself to this.

And once again, so what? I don't care about that... only where the decision affirmed the Constitution in Article IV, Section 2:, which I sourced for you. That's the basis of the decision, not Taney's gratuitous opinions on whether or not blacks could be citizens.

Quote by: BobbyO Dred Scott decision also ruled that blacks could not be citizens,...

True... but that did not necessarily make them slaves, simply a stateless "person of color".

Quote by: BobbyO and that laws restricting slavery were unconstitutional.

False... it ruled that laws permitting slavery were Constitutional and that the Constitution declared that a legal slave from one state could not be made free simply by going to another state, and that if folks didn't like it, they should amend the Constitution.

Here's the ruling, BobbyO. Show me where it ruled non-Slave states unconstitutional

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Quote by: BobbyO Yes, it abolished slavery as it had to - the Dred Scott decision had made slavery a constitutional right.

No it hadn't... it simply affirmed what the Constitution already said, a legal slave was a legal slave, no matter what state they were in.

Quote by: BobbyO True enough. For the most part, they saw it as a problem that would someday be solved.

That may well be, but they didn't write that into the Constitution. Only that slavery was legally acceptable and binding.

Quote by: BobbyO It was the Republican Party who ended the injustice of slavery. The Southern Democrats being the party of the big planters.

{{SIGH}} You're simply caught up in labels, Bobby, without any understanding of history... the Republicans in 1860 were the big government, bleeding heart liberals of the day, while the Democrats were the State's Rights, lo-tax, pro-landowner conservatives.

That's why the old Southern Democrats -- or Dixiecrats -- all fled Roosevelt's liberalising of the Democratic party to the Republican party... folks like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott. George Wallace became an independent.

West Virginia's Robert Byrd is the last of the breed, and claims to have changed his racist ways.

.

[johnwk]

Posted by: johnwk

Your brush creates a monolithic picture of our founding fathers and ignores those who worked quite diligently to end slavery after they gained their independence from England and which I documented above.

Quote by: Sonart . We're doing nothing of the sort. We're pointing out a fact... that whatever controversy may have surrounded the institution of slavery, the Founding Fathers chose to formally sanction the institution within the nation's founding legal document, the U.S. Constitution. I have to assume that, had they chosen, they could have written the document without any references whatsoever to slavery.

We’re doing? We’re pointing out? I didn’t know you spoke for and represented the personal views of other posters in this forum.

In any event, I cannot seem to find that section of the Constitution you keep referring to which “sanctions” the institution of slavery. As a matter of fact, I do see wording the federal Constitution penalized the slave holding States by denying them full representation in Congress. In addition, provision was also made in the Constitution you referred to granting power to Congress to tax the importation of slaves, and then forbid the importation of slaves after the year 1808.


Posted by johnwk

Your sermon here, like that of Rev. Wright‘s, is one which fails to give credit to those who worked to end the injustice of slavery and pretends our “founding fathers”, as a monolithic group, worked to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.

Quote by: Sonart . I'm a Democrat, John. I probably know better than you who worked to end the injustice of slavery and it wasn't the writers of the U.S. Constitution. Even abolitionist New Englander John Adams, who said, “Consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest of happiness” managed to consent to Slavery. You're argument seems to be that I haven't given credit where it was due to those opposed to slavery. But that's not the point... the point is what's in the Founding Document, the U.S. Constitution. Everything else is interesting sidebars and anecdotes about how it was achieved, with abolition being the apparently minority view.

You being a Democrat could be the answer why you make things up and repeatedly condemn our nation’s founding fathers as a monolithic group for the institution of slavery, when in fact a number of our founding fathers upon winning their independence from England, immediately began working to end the institution of slavery as documented above:

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 only real “point is”, you repeatedly fail to put your finger on that part of the Constitution which sanctions slavery. You miss the point that the institution of slavery existed on American soil long before our founding fathers framed and ratified our existing Constitution, indeed, slavery existed on American soil even before they were ever born, but was ended in a number of our states before they died.

Posted by johnwk:

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.

Quote by: Sonart . Is this your quote or someone elses? Whatever, it's usually the exact opposite that's true... from the contemporary denial that the 2nd Amendment was completely about maintaining citizen militias of "the People" instead of a standing Army or denial that the 1st Amendment meant to keep government completely out of personal religious belief.

My words expressing a factual statement. In addition, your assertion about the intentions for adopting the 1st and 2nd Amendments is not in harmony with the documented intentions for which those amendments were sent to the States for ratification.

Let us examine the historical facts.

The intentions for which the first ten Amendments were sent to the States for ratification is documented in the very Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added …..

Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the various States nor interfere with their constitutionally establishment state governments or the powers reserved by the States and people therein.

It is also important to note that Madison states the following with regard to adopting the Tenth Amendment and federalism:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments, as documented in the resolution sending the amendments to the States for ratification was, to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

Whatever the reason for each State’s ratification of the 2nd Amendment, whether it be for the people’s right to keep and bear arms or to maintain a state militia, or even merely to preserve the individual’s right to self defense is unimportant when one considers the irrefutable object for the amendment which was to further restrict the newly created government, prevent misconstruction of the Constitution of the United States, and prevent specific abuses by the hand of the federal government.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: GHook93 The constitution also didn't provide for privacy, but that was created by case law in the constitution. The same with having a US bank or giving the Federal courts the authority to hear the federal question. Slavery was a hot topic at the time and could have torn the nation. Instead of condemning it outright or endorsing to outright it did neither. The fugitive slave clause was an endorsement, rather it was a ill-conceived was of keeping the peace along the lines of the Northwest compromise. New countries take centuries to perfect, America was still a new-born at the time. However, we got it right eventually and I believe we are one of the best societies to race and religious minorities in the world. Again only 2 countries have affirmative action and America is one of them! I mean do you see any countries out their were a racial minority that makes up only 10% of the countries looks to be the front-runner to the white house? There are none!

The constitution also didn't provide for privacy, but that was created by case law in the constitution. The same with having a US bank or giving the Federal courts the authority to hear the federal question

Yet, as has been shown, the Constitution actually defended the institution of slavery, even if many of its authors publically questioned it.

Slavery was a hot topic at the time and could have torn the nation.

No doubt. But all that goes to show ios that the founding fathers were more worried about their own freedom from paying taxes to London than they were about the freedoms of non-white citizens forced to live in their new country.

Instead of condemning it outright or endorsing to outright it did neither.

Failure to condemn was endorsment.

However, we got it right

And no thanks to the founding fathers on the issue of slavery. No, you do however have to thank the very people the founding fathers warred against for that. Abolition formed its first strong roots in Clapham, London and from their was exported across the globe.

Again only 2 countries have affirmative action and America is one of them!

And what does that have to do with the price of tea?

I mean do you see any countries out their were a racial minority that makes up only 10% of the countries looks to be the front-runner to the white house?

I think you will find that Britain had Jewish prime minister in 1868. The current president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy is of Hungarian and Greek Jewish ancestry.

And thus far, the US, with one exception, has only had white anglo-saxon protestants in the top job; and no women.

So you were saying?