What's new

Founding Fathers on Slavery

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ders-on-slavery-is-ignorant-manipulative.html

Found this an interesting read being so close to our independence day.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., referring to his race and the Constitution on John Stossel's recent show "The State Against Blacks," said, "I wasn't even considered three-fifths of a guy."

The Rev. Al Sharpton, debating on Sean Hannity's show, said, "Any black, at any age at any stage, was three-fifths of a human."

Even eminent historian John Hope Franklin charged the Founders with "degrading the human spirit by equating five black men with three white men."

Statements like these either represent ignorance or are part of the leftist agenda to demean the founding principles of our nation by portraying the nation's founders as racists.

Let's look at the origin of the three-fifths clause.

Northern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and those opposed to slavery wished to count only free people in each state for the purpose of representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

Southerners wanted to count slaves as any other people. By counting slaves, who didn't have a right to vote, slave states would have greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states had not been allowed to count slaves, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not have been a union.

The compromise was that slaves would count as three-fifths of a person in deciding representation in the House and Electoral College. The compromise reduced the power of slave states relative to the South's original proposal but increased it over the North's original proposal.

My questions for those who condemn the three-fifths compromise are: Would blacks have been better off if slaves had been counted as a whole person? Should the North not have compromised at all and a union not have come into being? Would Rangel and Sharpton have agreed with Southerners at the Constitutional Convention, who argued slaves should "stand on an equality with whites" in determining congressional representation and Electoral College votes?

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."

Patrick Henry acknowledged reality, saying, "As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition." With the union created, Congress at least had the power to abolish the slave trade in 1808. James Wilson believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid "the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country."

Other Founders also condemned slavery.

George Washington said, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
John Adams: "Every measure of prudence ... ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence."

James Madison: "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."
James Otis said, "The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black."

Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is ... an atrocious debasement of human nature." Franklin, after visiting a black school, also said, "I ... have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained."

Alexander Hamilton's judgment was the same: "Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours."

John Jay wrote: "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."

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 as they try to reduce respect for our Constitution.
 
Thanks for sharing. That is very interesting. To me it shows that people of all walks of life will take liberties with the "truth" to further their cause. Misrepresentation and exaggeration are excellent tools for this. Sometimes it is plainly a desire to believe that something you hear, no matter whether you understand it or not, that supports your cause is true. Someone read somewhere that blacks were counted as 3/5 of a person in the framing of the constitution, liked that it supported their position of oppression, and latched onto it without bothering to find out the context. Context is everything.

demotivational-posters-context.jpg
 
This guy's point of view is obvious but this article is an attempt to sweep it under the rug that America's and the Founding Father's relationship to slavery is complicated.

He quotes seven people who all are decrying the institution of slavery. However 4 of those people (Washington, Madison, Otis, and Franklin) owned slaves for either the entirety of their lives or until very late in life. It's hardly intellectually honest to use quotes from those people as evidence that the Founding Fathers as a group did not support slavery or were not slavers themselves.

It's also true that it was the North that pushed for slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for voting representation during the Constitutional Convention. But that wasn't a brand new number. The 3/5ths ratio was originally proposed by the South during the period of the Articles of Confederation when the debate was on how much taxes each state should pay and the levy was going to be population based. In some sense, the North made the South eat their previous proposal. But in any event, both sides have 3/5ths blood on their hands and the narrative of the South valiantly trying to stand for the proposition that each slave is a full person is incorrect.

So yes, LG98 context IS everything. And this guy is trying to remove it.

Here's the reality: The Founding Fathers were people. They had foibles and were vulnerable to the moral weaknesses of the day of themselves. They were not Gods. They made mistakes and they did not have perfect knowledge of the world or of humanity. They did some very difficult and important things and all are essential parts of our shared history. Celebrating the last thing is not problematic, but attempting to deny the rest as part of the celebration is.
 
This guy's point of view is obvious but this article is an attempt to sweep it under the rug that America's and the Founding Father's relationship to slavery is complicated.

He quotes seven people who all are decrying the institution of slavery. However 4 of those people (Washington, Madison, Otis, and Franklin) owned slaves for either the entirety of their lives or until very late in life. It's hardly intellectually honest to use quotes from those people as evidence that the Founding Fathers as a group did not support slavery or were not slavers themselves.

It's also true that it was the North that pushed for slaves to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for voting representation during the Constitutional Convention. But that wasn't a brand new number. The 3/5ths ratio was originally proposed by the South during the period of the Articles of Confederation when the debate was on how much taxes each state should pay and the levy was going to be population based. In some sense, the North made the South eat their previous proposal. But in any event, both sides have 3/5ths blood on their hands and the narrative of the South valiantly trying to stand for the proposition that each slave is a full person is incorrect.

So yes, LG98 context IS everything. And this guy is trying to remove it.

Here's the reality: The Founding Fathers were people. They had foibles and were vulnerable to the moral weaknesses of the day of themselves. They were not Gods. They made mistakes and they did not have perfect knowledge of the world or of humanity. They did some very difficult and important things and all are essential parts of our shared history. Celebrating the last thing is not problematic, but attempting to deny the rest as part of the celebration is.
This.
 
Here's the reality: The Founding Fathers were people. They had foibles and were vulnerable to the moral weaknesses of the day of themselves. They were not Gods. They made mistakes and they did not have perfect knowledge of the world or of humanity. They did some very difficult and important things and all are essential parts of our shared history. Celebrating the last thing is not problematic, but attempting to deny the rest as part of the celebration is.

Agree.
 
True story: Millsapa neg repped me for that post with only the comment "God Bless America."

Some people truly are convinced that unless you love America unquestioningly and without reservation the way that a four year old loves his mother then you must be anti-American. Millsapa, would you care to actually make a post in the thread with a reasoned argument regarding the Founding Fathers as slavers or is that really the best you have?
 
https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ders-on-slavery-is-ignorant-manipulative.html

Found this an interesting read being so close to our independence day.


Remove the following two sentences and it's a much more credible essay. Too bad the author throws them in as part of an argument to get an emotional response from his targeted audience, but then offers nothing to support his argument.

Statements like these either represent ignorance or are part of the leftist agenda to demean the founding principles of our nation by portraying the nation's founders as racists....

...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 as they try to reduce respect for our Constitution.
 
True story: Millsapa neg repped me for that post with only the comment "God Bless America."

Some people truly are convinced that unless you love America unquestioningly and without reservation the way that a four year old loves his mother then you must be anti-American. Millsapa, would you care to actually make a post in the thread with a reasoned argument regarding the Founding Fathers as slavers or is that really the best you have?

THISGONBGUD.gif
 
True story: Millsapa neg repped me for that post with only the comment "God Bless America."

Some people truly are convinced that unless you love America unquestioningly and without reservation the way that a four year old loves his mother then you must be anti-American. Millsapa, would you care to actually make a post in the thread with a reasoned argument regarding the Founding Fathers as slavers or is that really the best you have?

Oh my! How could she do such a thing?!
She should be banned!

LOL! Only a libtard could go apoplectic over the use of the phrase God Bless America.
 
Oh my! How could she do such a thing?!
She should be banned!

LOL! Only a libtard could go apoplectic over the use of the phrase God Bless America.

Clearly you've never seen me at my most apoplectic.

Actually the point was that I didn't say a single thing that was un-American. Your comment, as a result, is a non sequitur. If you are truly hostile to the FACT that many founding fathers were actually slavers then what you want is a Disney-fied version of history in which everyone American is an unequivocal hero and impliedly everyone they fought against was an unequivocal villain. That's not the way the real world works.
 
Clearly you've never seen me at my most apoplectic.

Actually the point was that I didn't say a single thing that was un-American. Your comment, as a result, is a non sequitur. If you are truly hostile to the FACT that many founding fathers were actually slavers then what you want is a Disney-fied version of history in which everyone American is an unequivocal hero and impliedly everyone they fought against was an unequivocal villain. That's not the way the real world works.

Yeah, I got that you foolishly tried to build up this silly libtardian case that I accused you of being un-American simply by saying God Bless America.

LOL!
 
True Story: The guy who said the following quote a week ago, just told me to go to hell in rep. What's up with that?

Well, one, that was sarcasm... and two, you have shown me the light that there are indeed people not worth caring about.

So thanks.

And again, go to hell.
 
Well, one, that was sarcasm... and two, you have shown me the light that there are indeed people not worth caring about.

So thanks.

And again, go to hell.

Which part was sarcasm?
What makes me not worth caring about as opposed to your beloved murderers, rapists, and thieves?
 
Weird he left out Thomas Jeffersons notes on Virginia where he is blatantly racist towards African Americans, and influenced a ton of his followers to feel the same way.

No, this guy doesn't have an agenda, Thea aves should have thanked the white man for the 3/5ths vote. Oh, and also the genocide.
 
Back
Top