Posted on 08/28/2019 7:21:47 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Bookmark.
I’m sorry. I couldn’t read past “agree on with”.
“AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word “slave” or “slavery” in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a “PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR.” In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit,” &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery.”
“Only provisions”?
Had Lincoln never read Article I of the U.S. Constitution?
*There were exceptions for some Parasish in Lousinana and for now W Virginia.
I’m southern and I have the family Bible from the 1823 where handwritten notes from then through the war stated distaste of slavery. For one, the slaves were cheap labor, taking jobs the poor southerners desired.
Bump
P4l
There are the occasional disagreements about whether slavery was the cause or was it purely economic.
My standard go to (I admit a futile attempt most times) is to ask if there would have been a Civil War if there had been no slavery from the beginning of America.
This will start an argument every time.
On another note, we are seeing the influx of a culture and religion that has engaged in slavery for more that a thousand years; even to this day in Africa. I shudder to think what will happen in the future if this ideology wins out here. We may yet see the results in Europe first.
Amen! Slavery was in contradiction to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and that was the subject of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Then how do you explain the Confederate Constitution?
This is very hard to read. Translation, anyone?
This is going to be fun to watch.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
Since you are posting this from your own blog, do you agree or disagree with this part of what you have cited?
Since the Cornerstone Speech shows the Confederacy unambiguously disagreed with the Framers of the Constitution over the issue of race, how does correctly citing the Founding Fathers in any way deny the Confederacy's support for slavery?
Is it or is it not a fact that the Cornerstone Speech was used by the Confederacy as a justification for secession and later, the Civil War, and by extension slavery?
Probably no Civil War had there been no slavery, but there’s always the possibility it might’ve arose over another issue, perhaps economics or other issues where there were vehement factional disagreements.
We’re bound to have another (long overdue) with respect to the forces of good vs. evil that are readily apparent today (with the substantial difference that it isn’t entirely geographically factional, but more urban vs. rural with the suburbs caught in the middle, some sadly trending towards urban depravity).
Ah yes here we trot out the tired old “Cornerstone” speech by the powerless Vice President of the Confederacy while completely ignoring the fact that the actual president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis said the exact opposite of Stephens. Not only was there not a lineage break from the Constitution to the Confederacy, the truth is exactly the opposite. It was the Confederates who wanted to essentially preserve the balance between the states and the federal government the states delegated some of their sovereign powers to that the Founding Fathers had created. It was Lincoln and the Radical Republicans of the time who wanted to overthrow the balanced system the Founding Fathers created in favor of a much more centralized system of government that we have now....to our cost.
There was indeed hostility to slave trading at the outset though it must be noted that the slave trade and slavery though related are two different things. A 20 year sunset provision to allow the slave trade to continue was added to the constitution at the insistence of the numerous and powerful New England slave traders. Illicit slave trading was carried out by Northern slave traders right up until the mid 19th century. It was in fact one of the largest industries in the Northern states. An estimated two slave ships per month were being built and outfitted in NYC well into the 19th century.
The whole 1619 project of the Old Grey Lady is of course pure historical fallacy. Slavery existed before 1619 in what is now the United States. It was far from only Whites who participated in it and it is far from only Blacks who were enslaved. Slavery was the norm the world over at that time. Not unusual. Not unique to North America. The Norm. Everywhere. It was a simple fact of life, not the basis of everything in North America from that date on as the Racist New York Times would have it.
“while completely ignoring the fact that the actual president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis said the exact opposite of Stephens”
What did Jefferson Davis have to say about it?
“An estimated two slave ships per month were being built and outfitted in NYC well into the 19th century”
Who estimated this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.