I think the founders might have had different principles that yielded the Constitutional acceptance of slavery. The antislavery founders may have seen that the principle of a strong national self defense as superior to freedom for slaves. Given the choice of a larger and hence stronger nation vs a smaller and hence weaker nation, they chose the latter.
They judged that excluding the slave states would make the nation weaker, and chose the Constitutional principle of a strong national defense over, in this case, the conflicting Constitutional principle (that you see) that would have yielded freedom for the slaves.
The pro-slavery founders may have seen the Constitution as allowing the sovereign states to live by the "principle of slavery" that Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia, spoke of sometime in the 1830's: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."
By accepting the peculiar institution as 'legal' under the Constitution, - the framers acknowledged that some humans did not have life & liberty, -- that they were property.. This was an exception to the rule.. Get it yet?
I don't get it yet. The founders had all kinds of exceptions to equality under the law and applied the law to various classes of humans in various ways. Examples: Minors, women, and men without property.
"The antislavery founders may have seen that the principle of a strong national self defense as superior to freedom for slaves. Given the choice of a larger and hence stronger nation vs a smaller and hence weaker nation, they chose the latter former.
I don't get it yet.
I'm starting to doubt you want to, -- or ever will..
The founders had all kinds of exceptions to equality under the law and applied the law to various classes of humans in various ways. Examples: Minors, women, and men without property.
Men without property are free to acquire it, women have been 'freed', and minors are still exceptions, as most all can agree..
_____________________________________
BTW, -- you raised the 'slavery' issue back at #122, after I'd posted about the:
Constitutional duties of persons [ALL residents] under U.S. or State jurisdiction:
Jon Roland
Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties
Address:http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
Did you ever intend to 'connect the dots' between our Constitutional duties, and your objections to Constitutional flaws?
Do you feel that such flaws absolve you of responsibility to support its basic principles?