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.
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.
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
“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!
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.
Excellent article, Kaslin.