Slavery Is Neither Strange Nor Peculiar

The favorite leftist tool for the attack on our nation's founding is that slavery was sanctioned. They argue that the founders disregarded the promises of our Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These very ignorant people, both in and out of academia, want us to believe that slavery is unusual, as historian Kenneth Stampp suggested in his book, "Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South." But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd, unusual or unique to the U.S.

As University of Nebraska-Lincoln political science professor David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, "The Globalist," "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom." Slavery was common among ancient peoples -- Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only during the 17th century that the Atlantic slave trade began with Europeans assisted by Arabs and Africans.

Slavery is one of the most horrible injustices. It posed such a moral dilemma at our 1787 Constitutional Convention that it threatened to scuttle the attempt to create a union between the 13 colonies. Let's look at some of the debate. George Washington, in a letter to Pennsylvania delegate Robert Morris, wrote, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." In a Constitutional Convention speech, James Madison said, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." In James Madison's records of the Convention he wrote, "(The Convention) thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."

John Jay, in a letter to R. Lushington: "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused." Patrick Henry said, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil." George Mason said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."

Northern delegates to the Convention, and others who opposed slavery, wanted to count only free people of each state to determine representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Southern delegates wanted to count slaves just as any other person. That would have given slave states greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. If slaveholding states could not have counted slaves at all, the Constitution would not have been ratified and there would not be a union. The compromise was for slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person when deciding representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College.

My question for those who condemn the Three-Fifths Compromise is: Would blacks have been better off if northern convention delegates stuck to their guns, not compromising, and a union had never been formed? To get a union, the northern delegates begrudgingly accepted slavery. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."

Here's my hypothesis about people who use slavery to trash the founders: They have contempt for our constitutional guarantees of liberty. Slavery is merely a convenient moral posturing tool they use in their attempt to reduce respect for our Constitution.

“Interesting article but the author forgot to mention the rampant slavery that flourished in the Oriental countries. Slavery and servitude was the rule, not the exception.”

Prof. Williams is attempting to point out how certain “power brokers” in government attempt to defeat the system by referring to use of “cards”, in this case, the “3/5’s Slavery card”. Had slave states been given full person status for the slaves, their representation in congress would have dominated all legislation, in effect forcing the non-slave states to bend to their will. It was either compromise and have a constitutional republic instead of a monarchy/dictatorship, or a bunch of self-involved state governments going at each other. The citizens of the colonies had already endured monarchial government, in fact just won a war of independence from said monarchy.

Currently, the leftist movements are trending towards granting Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner. Essentially, they will grant the right to vote to an enormous number of non-citizens, thusly jacking up the number of popular votes for the leftist candidate who promises them the most goodies and freebies. This will have the effect of nullifying a tremendous number of legal citizen’s votes in the sparsely populated regions of the country who still honor the Electoral College.

Instead of acting like the union that we are supposed to be, several of the states are trying to nullify the union by going their separate ways regarding voting just so they can get the socialist/marxists elected and effect extremely radical change on the country. As he said “merely a convenient moral posturing tool they use in their attempt to reduce respect for our Constitution”.

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you… it just might turn the knob that does you in! Suppose, in those states going for popular count that Trump is able to make the biggest and best promises of goodies and freebies, and further imagine the popular vote going his way in those states! Wouldn’t that be something? What are the odds that morons and idiots in those states would take the free shhh...tuff he offers them?

Then, not only does your population lose the election... they’re also stuck with the large number of illegal immigrants now occupying your home-sweet-home that will need to be fed and taken care of. Just imagine the taxes that will be required to pull off that feat!

Why is it that Free Republic wants to re-fight the Civil War every other day.

Sure, the compromise was....a compromise. It worked for a while. Until it did not work.

Yeah, what followed the Civil War was a compromise which worked for a while. Until it did not work.

The war was about more than slavery: it was also about compromising the admirable system the founders set up to the point that it doesn’t work.

And that is why the thing gets re-hashed again and again whenever people who get it encounter smart people who don’t get it but have a hope of getting it.

BTW—very apt screen name for your comment.

Who ended slavery? The United States.

William Wilberforce
Black Rednecks and White Liberals - Thomas Sowell
Epistle to Philemon
Basically, Christians ended slavery, long, long after the New Testament was written.
Christians, especially protestant Christians - and especially British Protestant Christians, caused the abolition of slavery. See Part II of Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
American southerners were simply uniquely situated (among Christians) to be the last to get the word.

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.