Replies

DL quoting BJK: "US 1787 Constitution never mentions slaves or slavery by name."

DiogenesLamp: "A silly point.
Article IV, section 2 is clearly referring to slaves.
Also the authorization of Congress to ban the slave trade in 1808 uses euphemisms, but it is absolutely referring to slaves."

Naw, my point is not at all silly, and the fact that you refuse to recognize its importance tells us something about your own thinking.

The important point here is that our Founders went to great lengths to not just avoid words like "slave", they also tried to obscure slave references under language a casual reader might well not even understand.
Why?
Especially considering that 1861 secessionists had no problems with inserting words like "slave" when that's what they meant, why didn't our Founders?

The non-trivial, non-silly reasons are as obvious as they are important -- it's because our Founders well understood that slavery was both wrong and disgraceful, and so could not be called by its real name, but instead had to be referred to indirectly and euphemistically.

To our Founders, "slavery" was a "bad word", similar to a curse-word, or pornographic, and as such must not be used in their politest of documents.

So, to our Founders, 1861 Fire Eating Secessionists' use of words like "slave" in their Montgomery constitution, would be the equivalent of full-frontal nudity exposed.

Now, try to unsee that! 😂

Naw, my point is not at all silly, and the fact that you refuse to recognize its importance tells us something about your own thinking.

That I don't approve of playing word games with laws? Yeah, that's the domain of liberals who somehow find rights to abortion and gay marriage in the 14th amendment.

The constitution clearly is referring to slaves. It is clearly authorizing the capture and return of escaped slaves.

Don't beat around the bush. Speak forthrightly.

“Especially considering that 1861 secessionists had no problems with inserting words like “slave” when that's what they meant, why didn't our Founders? . . . it's because our Founders well understood that slavery was both wrong and disgraceful, and so could not be called by its real name, but instead had to be referred to indirectly and euphemistically.”

You may have a point about slaveowner Benjamin Franklin but I don't think slaveowner Charles Pinckney would have shied away from acknowledging slavery existed.

Thomas Jefferson in his notes supports your notion. In writing about the long philippic removed from the DOI he says: “The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”

There is that disgraceful northern hypocrisy you referenced.

Northern states owned relatively few slaves; they made their fortunes building and outfitting ships for the slave-catching expeditions; also by insuring slave cargoes; also by financing the slave-catching expeditions; and also by buying and shipping slave-grown cotton at a price allowing them to make profits. Also the northern states manufactured and sold goods from slave-grown cotton; more profits. Northern states also had Congress impose high import tariffs on European goods purchased from proceeds of slave-grown cotton; more money that Congress could direct to Northern interests.

I agree with what you wrote: “The important point here is that our (northern) Founders went to great lengths to not just avoid words like “slave”, they also tried to obscure slave references under language a casual reader might well not even understand.”

So, yes, northern Founders had guilty consciences and for million$ of reasons.

Now that you, Thomas Jefferson, and I all agree, I can't help but wonder if you will next repudiate your own words which acknowledge the north's long, evil, and disgraceful role in building the slave business?

One thing you could point out: by 1847 Pennsylvania had completely ended slavery in that state. By that time all their slaves had died or been sold down the river.

Naw, my point is not at all silly, and the fact that you refuse to recognize its importance tells us something about your own thinking. The important point here is that our Founders went to great lengths to not just avoid words like "slave", they also tried to obscure slave references under language a casual reader might well not even understand. Why? Especially considering that 1861 secessionists had no problems with inserting words like "slave" when that's what they meant, why didn't our Founders? The non-trivial, non-silly reasons are as obvious as they are important -- it's because our Founders well understood that slavery was both wrong and disgraceful, and so could not be called by its real name, but instead had to be referred to indirectly and euphemistically. To our Founders, "slavery" was a "bad word", similar to a curse-word, or pornographic, and as such must not be used in their politest of documents. So, to our Founders, 1861 Fire Eating Secessionists' use of words like "slave" in their Montgomery constitution, would be the equivalent of full-frontal nudity exposed.

There is no doubt the Founding Fathers were embarrassed by the existence of slavery which ran directly contrary to their lofty rhetoric expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

That was of no practical effect however. The fact is that they did provide for slavery in the US Constitution. They provided for expression of political power based on slavery - see 3/5ths compromise - its protection see Fugitive Slave Clause and even the 20 year continuance of the African Slave Trade.

That recognition and protection was not strictly at the behest of the Southern states either. All the states allowed slavery at the time the Constitution was ratified. The states of New England lobbied even harder than the states of South Carolina and Georgia for the continuance of the slave trade for a period of years - after all, they were the slave traders and thus stood most to profit.