Replies

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.

FLT-bird: "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."

Then you have not really paid attention to jeffersondem's arguments here.
Jeffersondem insists, against all evidence to the contrary, that our Founders "enshrined" bondage in their "pro-slavery" Constitution.

So I suspect jeffersondem will be dismayed to learn from you that our Founders were embarrassed by an institution which ran directly contrary to their own lofty rhetoric.
Who would ever suspect that?

And I think DiogenesLamp shares jeffersondem's views on this.

Both will be highly disappointed to learn that you've now joined the opposition, at least on this topic.

😉