Posted on 06/02/2007 9:43:40 AM PDT by Natural Law
The Founding Fathers didn’t enshrine slavery into the Constitution. They avoided it and made it noticeably absent. They knew it was contradictory to the principles in the USC, but they also knew that if they tried to ban slavery, the USC would never have been ratified. So, they knowingly left that contradiction in there, to be sorted out at a later date, which they knew would happen, and hoped would not destroy the country.
I greatly admire the writing and thinking of Thomas Jefferson. I think Hamilton had some critical flaws of judgment based upon a greater trust in the benevolence of government
Don't be disingenuous. The Constitution had several sections that referred directly to slaves.
Article I, Sec 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." If they aren't free persons or Indians, that leaves slaves.
Article I, Sec. 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." One does not charge an importation tariff on free immigrants.
Article IV, Sec. 2: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Can only refer to indentured bondsmen or slaves.
Article V: "...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; ..." Enshrines the institution of the slave trade until at least 1808.
Federalism was the only means and theme available to those living outside slave states who opposed the concept of slavery. It's funny that this cuts both ways. The same Federalism that you claim freed the slaves in 1865 is the same political force that enables the abortion of millions of babies today.
Indeed, it did cut both ways. It was also Federalism that enabled the slave States to push the Fugitive Slave laws.
But yet, he still kept his slaves. Do as I say (or suggest), but not as I do.
"I guess I just tire of those lunatics hell bent on castigating Southerners at every chance, but gloss over northern men."
Although I'm Southern born and raised, I have northern roots (though one of my ancestors fought under General Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans and Creek campaigns, and was an early settler of Middle Tennessee, not far from where I live). I've been accused on this board of being an attacker of both Southerners and Yankees. Less than a month ago, I drew the ire of some FReeper because I made a specific defense of Congressman Preston Brooks's thrashing of Sen. Sumner of Massachusetts. I try to call 'em like I see 'em. Both sides had their hypocrites and fools.
A terrible gamble, with horrific consequences. It should serve as a reminder that issues of paramount importance, no matter how divisive, should never be saddled upon future generations when they need to be dealt with at the present time.
Re: Hamilton and the Federalists, I don’t think that any of them would’ve been approving at the mass-scale bureaucracies we find ourselves ensnared in today. I’d think they’d believe in a modest-sized (as opposed to super-tiny) pro-active government, centralized only where necessary as it applied to issues of national importance. I believe they’d be quite horrified at the mess in DC.
But if things had been different, those "local, responsive" governments could have been very "hands on." At some points in our history they showed themselves to be pretty repressive.
It's the federal system and the tension between federal and state authorities that makes states look tame and sweet. After all, they don't have the kind of funds the federal government now has. But things could have turned out very differently, and perhaps worse.
In much of Latin America, the "anti-federalists" won, and the results weren't better than in the US. Local bosses and oligarchies aren't necessarily better than national bureaucracies.
On that we agree.
Probably the only state that would have refused to sign would have been South Carolina. There was a general sentiment among a great many at the time that slavery was fundamentally inconsistent with the nation ideals over which we fought the British.
Many including large slave owners like Washington also considered slavery to be of diminishing importance economically as we moved away from export crops like tobacco to more food crops and domestic manufacturing. They thought slavery would gradually be ended by all the states as had already been done in several Northern states. Only in Georgia and South Carolina was Slavery considered in 1787 to be economically vital, and Georgia for it's own security reasons (Indian attacks on it's western settlements) would have likely signed the Constitution under any circumstances. They need troops from other states to defend themselves.
So in the end, if the Constitution had put in motion a plan to phase out slavery, we would have just had twelve states, not thirteen --- perhaps an "addition by subtraction" situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.