Posted on 05/29/2019 3:06:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
The favorite leftist tool for the attack on our nation's founding is that slavery was sanctioned. They argue that the founders disregarded the promises of our Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These very ignorant people, both in and out of academia, want us to believe that slavery is unusual, as historian Kenneth Stampp suggested in his book, "Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South." But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd, unusual or unique to the U.S.
As University of Nebraska-Lincoln political science professor David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, "The Globalist," "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom." Slavery was common among ancient peoples -- Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only during the 17th century that the Atlantic slave trade began with Europeans assisted by Arabs and Africans.
Slavery is one of the most horrible injustices. It posed such a moral dilemma at our 1787 Constitutional Convention that it threatened to scuttle the attempt to create a union between the 13 colonies. Let's look at some of the debate. George Washington, in a letter to Pennsylvania delegate Robert Morris, wrote, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." In a Constitutional Convention speech, James Madison said, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." In James Madison's records of the Convention he wrote, "(The Convention) thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."
John Jay, in a letter to R. Lushington: "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused." Patrick Henry said, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil." George Mason said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."
Northern delegates to the Convention, and others who opposed slavery, wanted to count only free people of each state to determine representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Southern delegates wanted to count slaves just as any other person. That would have given slave states greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves at all, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person when deciding representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.
My question for those who condemn the Three-Fifths Compromise is: Would blacks have been better off if northern convention delegates stuck to their guns, not compromising, and a union had never been formed? To get a union, the northern delegates begrudgingly accepted slavery. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."
Here's my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool they use in their attempt to reduce respect for our Constitution.
The only payment that our Founders asked is for them to assimilate the same values cited in the Constitution, keep their own identity by refusing to mongrelize, and to revere the civilizing documents--the Declaration of Independence and the lawfully amended Constitution--which are outshone in appreciation for humanity only by the Christian Bible, which they were also taught to respect and revere as a guide of conduct.
Sliding back into the retrogressive doctrines of Marx or Mohammed or (God forbid!) anarchy of the jungle, shows only a rejection of what the United States of America was meant by its Founders to epitomize to mankind: the glorious nature imparted by their Creator.
Good article, though it is worth pointing out that the counting was used for both representation and taxation, which were tied together. The south was deprived of representation to an extent, but to the same extent it was deprived, it was also under taxed—at least in theory. The tariff policy managed to get around this.
interesting article but the author forgot to mention the rampant slavery that flourished in the Oriental countries. Slavery and servitude was the rule, not the exception.
Who built the Taj Mahal? Who built the pyramids of Egypt? Who built the Cahokia Mounds and other American Indian structures? Who built the Aztec, Mayan and Inca temples? Who built Ankor Wat? Who built the Chinese Emperor’s burial chamber? Who built the Appian Way? All were built by slaves. Who ended slavery? The United States.
and most of western countries.
The funny thing about this situation is that the entire slavery debate was really a by-product of the much larger issue that nearly derailed the entire effort - a strong central government vs much stronger local control. And that debate did not just include Southern states. What would have been called the mid West at the time was also against the strong central government. The New England states, with large populations and small areas, knew that with a strong central government they would dominate the country.
The issue of slavery was a large one, but far, far from the only one. Slavery was made illegal a long time ago, yet the issue of Federal Government control versus state control is far from settled - even today.
Why is it that Free Republic wants to re-fight the Civil War every other day.
Sure, the compromise was....a compromise. It worked for a while. Until it did not work.
I am still befuddled buy the number of people who think that “owning” another human being is OK; or that it was justified.
I understand it was the norm back in the day. I understand that most people have no idea about how the Constitution was written or why. No need to “educate” me about that stuff.
The the salves brought over during the 1600’s should have been pleased that they were “transported here?”
What kind of insanity is that?
Slaves should Refuse to mongrelize, be grateful, and revere the constitution? Go back to stormfront.
I will say the following, while not defending slavery. Whenever history discusses slaves who became freed men other than in America, there is a sense if great accomplishment and respect for peoples who went from slaves to free to citizens. There is also a certain respect for societies that allowed such success.
But in America it’s treated as an ongoing problem for everyone.
Contrary to the myth that all cultures are equal:
From Wiki on slavery in the Muslim world.
“Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in 1924 when the new Turkish Constitution disbanded the Imperial Harem and made the last concubines and eunuchs free citizens of the newly proclaimed republic.[18] Slavery in Iran was abolished in 1929. Among the last states to abolish slavery were Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman in 1970; and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007.[19] However, slavery claiming the sanction of Islam is documented at present in the predominantly Islamic countries of the Sahel,[20][21] and is also practiced in territories controlled by Islamist rebel groups. It is also practiced in countries like in Libya and Mauritania despite being outlawed.”
While Judeo-Christian moral precepts had a big influence on the end of slavery in the western world, Islamic teaching did not have a similar influence on Muslim dominant states. The biggest pressure on the official end of slavery in many Muslim dominant states, came not from within but from external pressure and only finally in the modern era.
bump
That is a nasty word that doesn't belong on Free Republic. The only mixed marriages are between people of two different religions.
Human beings are not dogs.
Besides, it was already far too late to worry about that even then. That mule had already left the barn.
“Here’s my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool they use in their attempt to reduce respect for our Constitution.”
Without a doubt!
Progressives have little trouble with slavery. They have been its biggest advocates. FDR was a big advocate for the practice. He signed both the Morgenthau Plan and the Yalta Agreement which had provisions for slavery. Truman’s Secretary of State, James Byrnes, opposed the slave trade. He commented, “Forced labor (slave) camps are a symbol of Hitler’s regime that we should eliminate as rapidly as possible.
Northerners were against slaves counting as a full person for purposes of representation. They were not against slavery or slave trading. Indeed, New England was the hub of slave trading for the entire Western Hemisphere. They were making a lot of money from slave trading.
It was New England which lobbied for and got a 20 year grandfather clause put into the constitution to allow them to legally continue slave trading. After that they carried on slave trading illegally on a widespread basis. They lobbied once again successfully to get the US not to sign international conventions allowing the Royal Navy to board and search US flagged ships for slaves on the basis of patriotism (the Royal Navy was engaged in the early 19th century in stamping out slave trading). New England’s obvious reason was so that they could continue slave trading - which they did quite profitably.
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.