woodpusher:
"The Founders were in 1776. The Framers were in 1787." And since many were the same people, it would not be incorrect to refer to them as the Founding Generation, or Founding Fathers, or just Founders, for short.
woodpusher: "So, not threatening secession establishes a slave owning Framer as "fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could."
That is awe-inspiring logic."
Certainly, contrasted to 1860 era Fire Eating Democrats, 1787 Federalist Pinckney was indeed awe-inspiring.
In 1787 Pinckney was willing to compromise with Northerners on the issue of slave importations and he did not oppose abolition in Northern states or in the Northwest Territories.
Nor did he seek to impose a Gag Rule on Congress in 1819.
And the key point about Pinckney in 1787 is that he was the most "hard core" of hard core Southern slavocrats, the one who insisted on Fugitive Slave returns in the Constitution.
Other Southern leaders, like Washington, Jefferson & Madison were willing to go a lot further towards abolition than Pinckney.
All of which supports my argument that our Founding Fathers were opposed to slavery in principle and were willing to restrict or abolish it wherever and whenever they could.
Unlike 1860 era Fire Eater Democrats.
![]()
woodpusher: "The Founders were in 1776. The Framers were in 1787." since many were the same people, it would not be incorrect to refer to them as the Founding Generation, or Founding Fathers, or just Founders, for short.
[BroJoeK #79] So, my argument still stands that there was a qualitative difference regarding slavery between our Founders in 1787, even the Southern-most, versus Fire Eating Democrats in 1860.
You did not refer to the Founding Generation. While many Founders were engaged in Framing the Constitution, many were not. The Framers tended to be a youthful lot and many were minors at the time of the Founding.
woodpusher: "So, not threatening secession establishes a slave owning Framer as "fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could." That is awe-inspiring logic."
Certainly, contrasted to 1860 era Fire Eating Democrats, 1787 Federalist Pinckney was indeed awe-inspiring.
You are sickeningly hopeless.
Your argment was stated at your #74.
[BroJoeK #74] The list goes on and demonstrates clearly that our Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could.
[BroJoeK #79] Yes, in 1819, Pinckney did oppose the Missouri Compromise, which did restrict slavery's expansion in some US territories, however, unlike 1850s era Southern Fire Eaters, Pinckney did not threaten secession over these restrictions.So, my argument still stands that there was a qualitative difference regarding slavery between our Founders in 1787, even the Southern-most, versus Fire Eating Democrats in 1860.
Your absurd argument that the "Founders were fully committed to restricting and gradually abolishing slavery wherever they could" is somehow supported by stating Pinckney did not threaten to secede.
The "logic" is profoundly stupid.