The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Aboslutlely not, as that is not how the document reads, nor was it the authors intent.

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?

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, pay attention, Ohio is a Province ( fo the sake of ridicule, but we both know it's a State, and where that State is located ), Comerica is the country. ( I expected a little more from a Moderator, but since you obviously cannot mask your bias, or your contempt, I'll lower my expectations. )

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.

[Milton Bradley]

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?

When I read "all men are created equal", I don't see a lot of wiggle room.

Quote by: The Decider 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.

Oops, must have missed that.


But that does nothing to reduce my loss of respect for his pedantic approach.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley When I read "all men are created equal", I don't see a lot of wiggle room.

Here's the "wiggle"--slaves were considered 3/5 of a man. Does 3/5 = 1 in Ohio?

"There is no gentle way to put it. The enslavement of blacks in America was of great concern to the men at the convention. Some genuinely felt that the black man was as much "man" as the white man. But this was a minority view. Southern delegates had one thing in mind when it came to slavery: to keep it going to prop up the Southern economy. Indeed, many of the largest slave holders in the United States were at the Convention. Most Northern delegates did not like slavery, but that does not mean they cared for blacks either. Many felt that the larger the black populations in the South grew, the larger the threat that that population would revolt against their masters and march north to exact revenge on the people who bought the goods they had been driven to tend.

For some, slavery itself was at least tolerable, but the slave trade, the importation of new people from Africa, was deplorable. Some felt it was deplorable because trafficking in human lives is simply deplorable. Others felt it deplorable because it diminished the value of their surplus slaves in the slave market.

First we will address the capitation (counting) of slaves in the Constitution. On June 11, Roger Sherman suggested that representation be based on a count of all free men. The South wanted their slaves counted as whole persons, but that would never happen. James Wilson wanted to get the issue out of the way quickly, and asked the Convention to adopt the same standard as that in the Articles: slaves would count as three-fifths persons. This issue would rise again on July 9, when some began to realize that the South could increase their representation in the Congress by simply importing new slaves. Recall, too, that everyone expected the extreme Southern states to grow in white population as well, over the next few decades. The notion was frightening to many from the North, and Northern states banded together on July 11 to completely remove slaves from the population counts.

In the end, both side got something they wanted. Through what some have theorized was a complicated bargain between Northern and Southern delegates to the Convention and Northern and Southern representatives to the Congress, taxation and representation were tied together (the Congress comes into the story, because on July 12, the day after the compromise was reached, the Northwest Ordinance was passed, detailing the carving up of the north western wilderness of North America, and granting the South fugitive slave rules). The deal allowed the South to keep the three-fifths count for representation that had been used under the Articles for calculation of state levies, as long as they also had a three-fifths count for calculation of taxes."

Constitutional Topic: The Constitutional Convention - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Black people only became whole "men" (1:1) after the passage of the 14th Amendment (following the Civil War that made the 14th Amendment possible). Women got full rights as human beings much later--with the suffrage movement.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Milton Bradley When I read "all men are created equal", I don't see a lot of wiggle room.

Then you disagree with the entire basis of this country as executed by the founding fathers from the beginning by allowing slavery as a lucrative and widely practiced institution maintained by many of these same founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson who wrote that line... well in the context of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and not the United State Constitution.

I wish more of you Libertarians would just come out and say that you disagree with the way this country has been run from the beginning, rather than trying to pretend you guys are champions of original intent, because quite frequently, and this instance is no exception, you continue to prove you have no clue what that intention(s) ever was. You're not even quoting the right document anymore.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Then you disagree with the entire basis of this country as executed by the founding fathers from the beginning by allowing slavery as a lucrative and widely practiced institution maintained by many of these same founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson who wrote that line... well in the context of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and not the United State Constitution. I wish more of you Libertarians would just come out and say that you disagree with the way this country has been run from the beginning, rather than trying to pretend you guys are champions of original intent, because quite frequently, and this instance is no exception, you continue to prove you have no clue what that intention(s) ever was. You're not even quoting the right document anymore.

Exactly! And the irony is that the author of "All men are created equal" was Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner. The "original intent" of the US Constitution on "men" did not include blacks or women. Period.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Then you disagree with the entire basis of this country as executed by the founding fathers from the beginning by allowing slavery as a lucrative and widely practiced institution maintained by many of these same founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson who wrote that line... well in the context of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and not the United State Constitution. I wish more of you Libertarians would just come out and say that you disagree with the way this country has been run from the beginning, rather than trying to pretend you guys are champions of original intent, because quite frequently, and this instance is no exception, you continue to prove you have no clue what that intention(s) ever was. You're not even quoting the right document anymore.

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.


I see this as one of the most vivid examples of the old cliche "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophies as being demonstratedly proven false.


All they really got for their efforts, beside the support, was a clouding of some critical issues.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider Exactly! And the irony is that the author of "All men are created equal" was Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner. The "original intent" of the US Constitution on "men" did not include blacks or women. Period.

Being as he has been proven to have freed his slaves, and had personal relationships with them, what is there to suggest that was not part of the plan, and the intent all along?


I suspect that that is where opinions really diverge, as I see the actual words in the document, and attemt to hold the signers to those words, and you guys look for some hidden hypocrisy.


Conspiracy Theorists!

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Being as he has been proven to have freed his slaves, and had personal relationships with them, what is there to suggest that was not part of the plan, and the intent all along?

Huh? Lots of southern slave owners had illicit relationships with slavewomen. That didn't mean they considered them political or moral equals. And did you get the part about 3/5ths human--the compromise AGREED to by the Framers of our constitution? That shows "intent." But maybe in Ohio, 3/5 human does equal 1 human.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I suspect that that is where opinions really diverge, as I see the actual words in the document, and attemt to hold the signers to those words, and you guys look for some hidden hypocrisy. Conspiracy Theorists!

Only two things changed "original intent" on the question of black constitutional rights--the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, and even then it took 100 years before federal troops and Supreme Court rulings IMPOSED those constitutional rights on segregated states and communities. Our nation spilled an ocean of blood righting the wrongs of the Framers' 3/5 human compromise.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider Only two things changed "original intent" on the question of black constitutional rights--the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, and even then it took 100 years before federal troops and Supreme Court rulings IMPOSED those constitutional rights on segregated states and communities. Our nation spilled an ocean of blood righting the wrongs of the Framers' 3/5 human compromise.

I know, and as I said, the "compromise" came from pandering, which was a huge mistake in my opinion.


So do not attempt to get me to defend views I do not hold.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I know, and as I said, the "compromise" came from pandering, which was a huge mistake in my opinion. So do not attempt to get me to defend views I do not hold.

If the majority viewed slaves as subhuman, and the majority framed the US Constitution, then the "original intent" of the US Constitution reflected the majority viewpoint. The "original intent" can't be the minority (ie losing) opinion. But, please, show evidence to the contrary if you can.

[GHook93]

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?

When the country was there were rational fears that not all States would join the Union. Last thing the founding fathers wanted was a divided nation in which conflict would break out and Britain trying to reassert control. The country was a new born and very unstable. It was very uncertain time. Look at it from the historical perspective of the time.

In order to the Southern States loyal to the Union they compromised on allowing slavery in the South. But if you notice that the declaration of independence written by Thomas Jefferson (a founding father), has the line "All men are created equally." There is nothing in the constitution that allows for slavery! Article V allows for the constitution to be amended and VII allow for the constitution to be ratified. In fact the country did do this by abolishing slavery in the XIII amendment and XIV amendment guaranteed Blacks civil rights and XV created black suffrage.

By the fact that declaration of independence allowed the "all men are created equally" and that nothing in the constitution specifically makes slavery legal. In fact half the country didn't allow slavery. That is proof enough.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider Here's the "wiggle"--slaves were considered 3/5 of a man. Does 3/5 = 1 in Ohio? "There is no gentle way to put it. The enslavement of blacks in America was of great concern to the men at the convention. Some genuinely felt that the black man was as much "man" as the white man. But this was a minority view. Southern delegates had one thing in mind when it came to slavery: to keep it going to prop up the Southern economy. Indeed, many of the largest slave holders in the United States were at the Convention. Most Northern delegates did not like slavery, but that does not mean they cared for blacks either. Many felt that the larger the black populations in the South grew, the larger the threat that that population would revolt against their masters and march north to exact revenge on the people who bought the goods they had been driven to tend. For some, slavery itself was at least tolerable, but the slave trade, the importation of new people from Africa, was deplorable. Some felt it was deplorable because trafficking in human lives is simply deplorable. Others felt it deplorable because it diminished the value of their surplus slaves in the slave market. First we will address the capitation (counting) of slaves in the Constitution. On June 11, Roger Sherman suggested that representation be based on a count of all free men. The South wanted their slaves counted as whole persons, but that would never happen. James Wilson wanted to get the issue out of the way quickly, and asked the Convention to adopt the same standard as that in the Articles: slaves would count as three-fifths persons. This issue would rise again on July 9, when some began to realize that the South could increase their representation in the Congress by simply importing new slaves. Recall, too, that everyone expected the extreme Southern states to grow in white population as well, over the next few decades. The notion was frightening to many from the North, and Northern states banded together on July 11 to completely remove slaves from the population counts. In the end, both side got something they wanted. Through what some have theorized was a complicated bargain between Northern and Southern delegates to the Convention and Northern and Southern representatives to the Congress, taxation and representation were tied together (the Congress comes into the story, because on July 12, the day after the compromise was reached, the Northwest Ordinance was passed, detailing the carving up of the north western wilderness of North America, and granting the South fugitive slave rules). The deal allowed the South to keep the three-fifths count for representation that had been used under the Articles for calculation of state levies, as long as they also had a three-fifths count for calculation of taxes." Constitutional Topic: The Constitutional Convention - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net Black people only became whole "men" (1:1) after the passage of the 14th Amendment (following the Civil War that made the 14th Amendment possible). Women got full rights as human beings much later--with the suffrage movement.

True early America treated Blacks poorly, but this is legalizing slavery. Nothing in the constitution does that!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: GHook93 When the country was there were rational fears that not all States would join the Union. Last thing the founding fathers wanted was a divided nation in which conflict would break out and Britain trying to reassert control. The country was a new born and very unstable. It was very uncertain time. Look at it from the historical perspective of the time. In order to the Southern States loyal to the Union they compromised on allowing slavery in the South. But if you notice that the declaration of independence written by Thomas Jefferson (a founding father), has the line "All men are created equally." There is nothing in the constitution that allows for slavery! Article V allows for the constitution to be amended and VII allow for the constitution to be ratified. In fact the country did do this by abolishing slavery in the XIII amendment and XIV amendment guaranteed Blacks civil rights and XV created black suffrage. By the fact that declaration of independence allowed the "all men are created equally" and that nothing in the constitution specifically makes slavery legal. In fact half the country didn't allow slavery. That is proof enough.

Well said.


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.


What can I say, I have become somewhat intolerant when being asked to suffer for other peoples stupidity. ( Which is all compromise is when you're the only one compromising. )

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider Exactly! And the irony is that the author of "All men are created equal" was Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner.

True, but he was very outspoken against slavery and was a huge supporter of abolishing it.

The "original intent" of the US Constitution on "men" did not include blacks or women. Period.

Wrong he meant it to mean all men, regardless of race or religion!

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 True, but he was very outspoken against slavery and was a huge supporter of abolishing it. Wrong he meant it to mean all men, regardless of race or religion!

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

Grandpa h.

[The Decider]

Quote by: GHook93 True, but he was very outspoken against slavery and was a huge supporter of abolishing it.

Being outspoken about slavery does not mean Jefferson saw black men as his equals, politically, physically, or morally.

Quote by: GHook93 Wrong he meant it to mean all men, regardless of race or religion!

And the Pulitzer Prize winning Jefferson historian Stephen Ambrose says you are wrong about Jefferson at the time he wrote "All men are created equal," GHook. I hope you don't mind if I take his word over yours....

Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people. He embraced the worst forms of racism to justify slavery.

Smithsonian Magazine | History & Archaeology | Flawed Founders

You might have better luck with John Adams, but he was a minority on this and other issues of the day.

[Chris the Chees]

Aboslutlely not, as that is not how the document reads, nor was it the authors intent.

Really, well I am sorry to inform you of the realities of first stages in the history of United States, the same history you look back on with such adoration. To expand, while the majority of the founding fathers were in favour of abolition, or so they claimed, it didn't stop them doing anything serious about the institution, stop them profiting from slavery and nor did it stop Jefferson from having slaves lashed and advertise for runaways. There is a very good reason why the constitution made no reference to slavery, and that is because the founding fathers were racists, who considered black people to be inferior and, while they may have spoken against the institution, weren't willing to do anything about it because it would damage their own personal funds as well as the economy, especially in the South.

To tell you a true story, a pair of Methodist preachers, touring large parts of the United States in 1784, were invited to the home of one such founding father. They asked the founding father if he would sign a petition requesting the abolition of slavery. The preachers presented unto the 'great man' their petition. His response was to inform the preachers that he shared their sentiments and had told leading individuals of the state, but that it would not be 'proper' to sign any such petition. I will let you guess which of the founding fathers that was. But that, my dear Milton, sums up the founding fathers when it comes to the issue of slavery, good sentiments but abject refusal to take action.

To quote William W. Freehling, who wrote an article on this topic back in the 70's: -

"The realization of the Founding Fathers' antislavery dream was blocked also by the concern for property rights articulated in their Declaration. Jefferson's document at once denounced slave chains as immoral and sanctioned slave property as legitimate. It made the slave's right to freedom no more "natural" than the master's right to property."

William W. Freehling, 'The Founding Fathers and Slavery', The American Historical Review, Vol. 77, No. 1. (Feb., 1972), p. 83.

That is libertarianism in reality, rather than the utopian dreams I see nurtured on the internet. Property and profit are more important than humanity.

No, pay attention, Ohio is a Province ( fo the sake of ridicule, but we both know it's a State, and where that State is located ), Comerica is the country. ( I expected a little more from a Moderator, but since you obviously cannot mask your bias, or your contempt, I'll lower my expectations. )

Eh? Did you read what I said?

Chris was ridiculing your typo

I wasn't ridiculing him for that at all, I make typo's all the time; as I said when i wrote it.

the only reason it's being discussed is becuase you brought it up.

Whatever, you stick to your logical fallacy if you want. I am not going to play that game with you; I'm just going to stick to the debate, which you seemingly have little left to add to.

Hahahahaha..., ah, that's precious.

Is it precious that I, seemingly, know much more about the history of your world view than you do?

Quote by: The Decider What evidence do you have that the US Constitution's writers did not intend to protect an institution they freely participated in and supported?

He hasn't got any, because that was exactly their intention. As I said above, they didn't like slavery; but they were more than happy to protect it because it made them and the US money.

Chris was ridiculing your typo, and even stated the same

I didn't ridicule him at all. I genuinely didn't know what the hell he was blabbering about, beyond a guess that he had made a typo. I certainly didn't ridicule him for it, as I said I can sympathise with both poor spelling and typos because I make them all the time.

[Chris the Chees]

I have moved this interesting discussion to its own thread.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider Being outspoken about slavery does not mean Jefferson saw black men as his equals, politically, physically, or morally.

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!

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!

Quote: By Decider: And the Pulitzer Prize winning Jefferson historian Stephen Ambrose says you are wrong about Jefferson at the time he wrote "All men are created equal," GHook. I hope you don't mind if I take his word over yours....

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

So you rather take the word of a plagarizer? A plagarizer loses all credability in my opinion!

The "History News Network" web site of George Mason University, however, in a web article entitled "How the Ambrose story developed", detailed seven of Ambrose works that had plagiarized at least 12 authors

Ambrose plagiarism
History News Network

You also want to support a writer who has proven to lack research integrity?

Ambrose was also criticized by other historians and media critics for inaccuracies in his writings and for shoddy or missing research, particularly as it contributed to the perception of him as a writer of "popular" or "best-seller history".

Ambrose cited his son Hugh as the primary research assistant for the book and chose not to respond. On January 11, 2001, Lloyd Grove, in The Washington Post column "The Reliable Source," reported that a co-worker found a "serious historical error" in the same book and that "a chastened Ambrose" promised to correct the error in new editions.

MS1741 Stephen E. Ambrose WWII#9A2.doc

More integrity raising questions!

Ambrose also became the target of controversy in 1995 from U.S. Army Air Forces veterans who objected to his characterization of C-47 pilots as untrained and incompetent in the Normandy invasion. A letter-writing campaign noted that Ambrose did not interview a single troop carrier pilot among the 1,642 participating in Operation Neptune nor consult official records, relying instead only on anecdotes of some paratroopers critical of the jumps. It also accused him of "reneging" on promises to correct the record before his death. A similar controversy ensued when Ambrose, apparently drawing only from a writing by S.L.A. Marshall, implied cowardice by a British coxswain of a landing craft during the landings at Omaha Beach. In addition to the imputation, the article gave further weight to the argument that Ambrose had a pattern of drawing his conclusions from those of other authors.

An Open Letter to the Airborne Community

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well said.

Thanks

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.

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. You, as did Ron Paul, ignore the fact that a serious conflict would have erupted either. 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.