Slavery and the Constitution

[CFLarsen]

It was suffrage for the states. The states initially appointed the Senators. Now, the people do, and the states get no say in it at all. This removed one of the most important checks and balances against the power of the Federal government.

.....by letting the people decide who governs them??

 

[BPSCG]

People are allowed to enslave other people, based on whether these people are taxed or not? What kind of sick, inhumane argument is that?

I think you have it backwards. The argument was over whether government's power to tax would be depend on whether they were slaves or not.

What it comes down to is this: Did the Founding Fathers consider black people equal to white people?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Not so. I think Lincoln put it best:

I hold that ... there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

Read that carefully. Lincoln acknowledges that "the negro" is not the equal of "the white man" in color, without drawing any moral conclusions about the inequality. He's simply stating a fact, as much a fact as saying that an orange is not the equal of a blueberry in color.

He further says that "perhaps" "the negro" is also not equal in moral or intellectualy endowment. Anyone making that claim today would be regarded as ignorant, but in the context of the time, it was the enlightened attitude; it acknowledged the possibility that intellectual and moral capacity is not related to race.

And then Lincoln goes on to say it's all irrelevant, anyway. Even if it could be proven that "the negro" was inferior in color and intelligence, he still has the same right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as any man.

And I suspect few of the founding fathers would have disagreed.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think you have it backwards. The argument was over whether government's power to tax would be depend on whether they were slaves or not.

It is impossible to get a circular argument backwards.

I think Lincoln put it best

Lincoln was not one of the Founding Fathers.

And I suspect few of the founding fathers would have disagreed.

Show your evidence.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Show your evidence.

Originally posted by CFLarsen Why? We can examine a paranormal claim and validate it - or not - by looking at the evidence. We can't do that with political ideologies.[/B]

Your the one that says evidence is not relevant to a political position, so why are you asking for evidence?

 

[BPSCG]

Lincoln was not one of the Founding Fathers.

Thanks for the history lesson; forgive me for using one man's eloquent words when they brilliantly summed up a predecessor's attitudes. I assume you henceforth foreswear the use of the quote function here?

Originally posted by BPSCG
And I suspect few of the founding fathers would have disagreed.

Show your evidence.

(that few of the founding fathers would have disagreed with the proposition that all men are equal in rights, if not necessarily in color, intellect, or "moral capacity")

Okay, I'm not going to go down the list of all 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence, just a few of the notables who were there:

Benjamin Franklin's last public acts were to sign a memorial to Congress urging the abolition of slavery, a cause with which he had sympathized since the 1730s, and to become the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. I submit he probably thought blacks had the same rights as whites.

Jefferson: We've seen earlier in this thread, the language regarding slavery that Jefferson was pressured to drop from the Declaration. Yes, he never freed his own slaves, the hypocrite (he enjoyed high living too much, I understand), but that doesn't make his ideas on slavery that he shared with others any less powerful. There's no doubt that when he said "all men are created equal," he meant ALL men.

Adams: Fought passionately with Jefferson over the removal of the anti-slavery language from the Declaration. Argued that if slavery weren't abolished, we'd be fighting a war over it in a hundred years. His prediction was off by only 15 years.

I can't speak to the views of Button Gwinnett, Caesar Rodney, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

 

[punchdrunk]

It was suffrage for the states. The states initially appointed the Senators. Now, the people do, and the states get no say in it at all. This removed one of the most important checks and balances against the power of the Federal government.

Hi Shane, would you happen to have some web links discussing the impact of the 17th Amendment in this regard? I would like to learn more about it.

thanks

 

[shanek]

Okay, I'm not going to go down the list of all 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence, just a few of the notables who were there:

Benjamin Franklin's last public acts were to sign a memorial to Congress urging the abolition of slavery, a cause with which he had sympathized since the 1730s, and to become the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. I submit he probably thought blacks had the same rights as whites.

Jefferson: We've seen earlier in this thread, the language regarding slavery that Jefferson was pressured to drop from the Declaration. Yes, he never freed his own slaves, the hypocrite (he enjoyed high living too much, I understand), but that doesn't make his ideas on slavery that he shared with others any less powerful. There's no doubt that when he said "all men are created equal," he meant ALL men.

Adams: Fought passionately with Jefferson over the removal of the anti-slavery language from the Declaration. Argued that if slavery weren't abolished, we'd be fighting a war over it in a hundred years. His prediction was off by only 15 years.

I can't speak to the views of Button Gwinnett, Caesar Rodney, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

Caesar Rodney was dead by that time, so I doubt he had much to say.

Actually, George Mason and a few others refused to sign the Constitution simply because it allowed for slavery.

 

[shanek]

Hi Shane, would you happen to have some web links discussing the impact of the 17th Amendment in this regard? I would like to learn more about it.

Here's the best one I know about:

http://www.articlev.com/repeal_the_17th_amendment.htm

It goes over why the Senate was set up the way it was, why the 17th Amendment came about, and how it could be repealed without reverting back to the old problems.

 

[crimresearch]

I look forward to the day you can ask a straight question. If you have done so previously without my notice, please tell me.

I have in fact done so previously.

So have other posters.


And we are still waiting for you to give a straight answer.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanks for the history lesson; forgive me for using one man's eloquent words when they brilliantly summed up a predecessor's attitudes. I assume you henceforth foreswear the use of the quote function here?

If you were quoting the FF, then it would be relevant. Otherwise, it isn't.

Benjamin Franklin's last public acts were to sign a memorial to Congress urging the abolition of slavery, a cause with which he had sympathized since the 1730s, and to become the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. I submit he probably thought blacks had the same rights as whites.

That would depend on two things: First, evidence that he did sympathize with it, and second, that he really thought that blacks had the same rights as whites.

Jefferson: We've seen earlier in this thread, the language regarding slavery that Jefferson was pressured to drop from the Declaration. Yes, he never freed his own slaves, the hypocrite (he enjoyed high living too much, I understand), but that doesn't make his ideas on slavery that he shared with others any less powerful. There's no doubt that when he said "all men are created equal," he meant ALL men.

I'm sorry, but we cannot count Jefferson, if he didn't believe what he said. Paying lip service is not evidence of conviction.

Adams: Fought passionately with Jefferson over the removal of the anti-slavery language from the Declaration. Argued that if slavery weren't abolished, we'd be fighting a war over it in a hundred years. His prediction was off by only 15 years.

Any sources?

I can't speak to the views of Button Gwinnett, Caesar Rodney, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

OK.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your the one that says evidence is not relevant to a political position, so why are you asking for evidence?

I'll spell it out for you once more, since you obviously have a very hard time understanding the difference.

When I ask for evidence that the Founding Fathers would have agreed, it's because we can examine the evidence to see if they really did agree or not. There could be letters, speeches, actions, etc.

What we cannot do is determine skeptically whether they were right to do it.

There's a difference between determining whether an event happened or not, and determining whether it was justified.

Get it yet? I can easily explain it even further, but I cannot ensure that you understand it.

 

[shanek]

Jefferson: We've seen earlier in this thread, the language regarding slavery that Jefferson was pressured to drop from the Declaration. Yes, he never freed his own slaves, the hypocrite (he enjoyed high living too much, I understand),

That wasn't it. That wasn't it at all. The reason Jefferson (and Washington, too) didn't free his slaves is that it wasn't legally possible for him to do so. According to Virginia law (which Jefferson tried desperately to change), any freed slave still in the commonwealth 15 months later could be captured and re-sold. Escaping to another state wouldn't work because of the Fugitive Slave Act; there was no mechanism for the slave's freedom to be recognized.

Jefferson tried to get Congress in 1784 to pass the following act:

"That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty."

Sound familiar? Yes, with very few changes, the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves, was written by Jefferson! Unfortunately, his resolution failed...by a single vote.

He never gave up. When Washington died, he successfully freed his slaves in his will—at literally, the last possible moment. It was the only way he could. By the time Jefferson had died, the laws had stiffened even further and that didn't even work.

There was absolutely no hypocrisy here. Only the lack of success of a man who tried his entire life to free every slave he could.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

When I ask for evidence that the Founding Fathers would have agreed, it's because we can examine the evidence to see if they really did agree or not. There could be letters, speeches, actions, etc.

So what they said or wrote would be useful evidence in understanding and evaluating their political position? Good.

So why do you refuse to answer questions (ie say or write something) about your own political views? Do you not want others to understand your political position or is it simply that you don't want to have to evaluate it yourself?

 

[CFLarsen]

So what they said or wrote would be useful evidence in understanding and evaluating their political position? Good.

So why do you refuse to answer questions (ie say or write something) about your own political views? Do you not want others to understand your political position or is it simply that you don't want to have to evaluate it yourself?

I am not here to promote my political views.

 

[Michael Redman]

Who said anything about that? We are talking about what's in the Constitution.

If you're going to take issue with what I say, I would appreciate it if you tried to follow along.

The question was raised whether the founders viewed black and white as equal, and the answer given was "a resounding no." I then asked if, among others, the Danes saw black and white as equal, and offered the answer, "a resounding no." I further stated that no one saw black and white as equal at that time.

You took issue with that answer, and said that the answer was, in regard to Danes, a resounding "yes". In other words, at the time the US Constitution was written, Danes saw black and white as equal. This is the position you took by contradicting me.

You then offer a constitution, written some 80 years later, as proof that Danes saw black and white as equal. Ignoring the generations of time passed from our subject period, the constitution offered does not demonstrate that Danes saw black and white as equal, anymore than the Declaration of Independence proves that Americans did.

 

[Michael Redman]

It was suffrage for the states. The states initially appointed the Senators. Now, the people do, and the states get no say in it at all. This removed one of the most important checks and balances against the power of the Federal government.

I see what you're saying. I read the sufferage of the states as the people of the states, but that's probably not how it was originally intended. Still, whether the senator represents the people of the state or the democratically elected government of the state seems of minor importance, if state government really reflects the will of the people.

 

[CFLarsen]

Michael Redman,

I'm sorry, but we are talking about Constitutions. At least, I am.

 

[Ed]

If you're going to take issue with what I say, I would appreciate it if you tried to follow along.

The question was raised whether the founders viewed black and white as equal, and the answer given was "a resounding no." I then asked if, among others, the Danes saw black and white as equal, and offered the answer, "a resounding no." I further stated that no one saw black and white as equal at that time.

You took issue with that answer, and said that the answer was, in regard to Danes, a resounding "yes". In other words, at the time the US Constitution was written, Danes saw black and white as equal. This is the position you took by contradicting me.

In any event, a cursory reading of Danish immagration law clearly shows that whiter is righter today. I suspect that there is a reason for that and it does not have to do with equality.

 

[shanek]

I see what you're saying. I read the sufferage of the states as the people of the states, but that's probably not how it was originally intended. Still, whether the senator represents the people of the state or the democratically elected government of the state seems of minor importance, if state government really reflects the will of the people.

No, there is actually a huge difference. Look at a lot of the stuff the Federal government has done. For example, the Federal government has no authority whatsoever to set a drinking age. So they went to the states and said, "Raise your drinking age to 21 or say bye-bye to your highway funds." The Senate is actually the driving force behind a lot of that. Things like that would never have happened if the Senate represented the states.

 

[Michael Redman]

Michael Redman,

I'm sorry, but we are talking about Constitutions. At least, I am.

You directly contradicted my statement. You are therefore talking about exactly the same thing I am.

Besides, like I said, the fact that a constitution states that people are equal under the law obviously does not prove that the people viewed black and white as equal, whether you're talking about 1776 or 1849.