• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the founding fathers end slavery?

Did the founding fathers end slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • No

    Votes: 47 92.2%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Total voters
    51
More the part where it points out that Douglass realized that the constitution was both pro- and anti-slavery. This is a reflection of the differences of opinions amongst the founders at the time.

The article states.....

It was at this moment that he was most willing to acknowledge the paradoxical nature of the Constitution, and how that document's ambiguities and jarring contradictions--pro-liberty here, pro-slavery there--fed the sectional crisis since both North and South had grounds for seeing their clashing stances on slavery as true to the founders and the Constitution.

Federalist 42 explains the reasoning, the very reasoning cited by Douglas early on in 1851.....yes, the Founders were indeed divided, and yes, the language was sometimes at odds unless you read the attending explanations given by the writers....

Douglass became ardently in favor of the anti-slavery view of the constitution because he understood that this approach was the best one to take in order to achieve his goal of abolishing slavery. It was the most effective way of defeatignthe argumetns of those who wished to proclaim that the constitution intended slavery to remain present in the US.

I agree....he came to understand that he would NEVER have had a platform with which to fight those who would argue in favor of Slavery without that 3/5ths clause...without it the South would have had inordinate congressional powers it did not deserve.

Back to the article....

In pondering his verdict on this debate about the Constitution and slavery, Douglass asked, "Who is right in this contest?" and answered, "so far as the Constitution is concerned.., all are wrong," since the Constitution was neither wholly pro- or anti-slavery but "at war with itself."

It could NOT be wholly one way or the other, hence the compromise.

And there are specific founding fathers who deserve credit for making sure that the language in the constitution did not overtly mention slavery so that this could occur.

But, that does not mean that all of the founders deserve credit for this.

See above.....you see we agree in principle....and I never said "all".
 
Walter said:
If you want and demand Homosexuality to be considered a Guaranteed Right of Humanity...simply do as is the established precedent....Amend The Constitution and do not attempt to circumvent the will of the People by Dictating Law from the Bench. There is a great deal of difference between REVIEWING WRITTEN LAW and making NEW LAW BY OPINION...SCOTUS has no such authority.
Click to expand...

I am not demanding anything be a right... You really are just building a giant strawman with that comment. If something isn't a right, then what is it? A crime? Homosexuality is not a crime... it just appears to me that you are playing semantics..

Guaranteed Right of Humanity... lol.. seriously. Where is that phrase even in the constitution?

You would declare that it is OPPRESSION when the majority VOTES at the ballot box....but its NOT OPPRESSION when NEW LAW comes from the BENCH? Really. That sword CUTS both ways...since when does the MINORITY get to oppress the majority by forcing their twisted morality upon them?
Click to expand...

If the majority votes at the ballot box to oppress the minority, then it's oppression... slavery was oppression, it was once popular, and it was wrong.

You are arguing that the majority is being oppressed if they can't oppress the minority and that is kind of @ss backwards. The constitution doesn't say you have a right to oppress others... :2razz:

To argue the white slave owners were oppressed because they couldn't oppress... amazing, absolutely amazing.
 
Patrickt said:
No, and Abraham Lincoln did not free even one slave in the U.S.

The founding fathers did establish a Constitution that allowed the people of the United States to outlaw slavery--mostly.
Click to expand...

I see what you're trying to say, but that's not what he asked. Me providing Bob the freedom to walk through my property doesn't mean I forced him to.

The constitution allows a LOT of things. Are the founders responsible for all the things the constitution could possibly allow?
 
ludahai said:
The President has nothing to do with the amendment process...
Click to expand...

I understand that. Lincoln supported the 13th amendment.
 
Hatuey said:
Well in America, slavery was actually far more costly than in South America where slaves were a dime a dozen. Losing a slave or having sick slaves wasn't profitable so most owners actually took pretty good care of their slaves(though there are many exceptions, they are just that, exceptions, not the rule) because having them die was not an option. Slave owners would have doctors visit their slaves and for the most part, slavery in the South was comfortable when compared to what happens when slavery is abolished. Having an owner also made slaves something to be protected at the very least on an economic dimension. At the very least, having an owner guaranteed that blacks couldn't be harmed as most people did not have the means to actually buy and maintain slaves.

Fast forward 20 years after slavery is abolished and the totally disenfranchising policies that both the North and South employed in the post-slavery period actually left many blacks unable to take care of themselves. You could argue that this was a positive thing but only if you ignore that the local governments most blacks lived under(and by that I mean the Southern governments most blacks lived under as most blacks lived in the South at this period), created a situation where blacks were left to fend for themselves against A) their former owners who now had little interest in ensuring their welfare and B) governments funded by these economic and social elites. On a more important level, abolishing slavery made blacks personas non gratas who could be harmed without fear that one would have to pay for them.

Though under slavery blacks were thoroughly oppressed and one could argue that they suffered uncounted injustices, politically disenfranchising policies employed post slavery had far worse repercussions than the institution of slavery itself. I have argued with many people about this and the conclusion is always the same, under slavery, blacks enjoyed certain protections which were at the very least protective of their physical bodies. Once slavery was removed they could be attacked politically, economically and physically with little consequence to their oppressors.

It's a horrible thing to say but within the context of American history abolishing slavery actually brought the value of a black person's life down. I forgot the paper that I read on it and I'll try to find it but I remember reading about how the murder of blacks by whites before and after the abolition of slavery. Blacks were more likely to die at the hands of whites after slavery than while the institution was actually in place. In essence, slavery actually gave value to slaves where the political and economic policies that affected them after wards made them become far less valuable.
Click to expand...

yes, i have seen the logic. what i haven't seen are the metrics, or ways for accounting for intangible net benefits (for example, families no longer being split by the sale of their members.)
 
The would be no Civil War during the Lincoln's tenure if the founding fathers had ended the slavery....
 
Amazed said:
More the part where it points out that Douglass realized that the constitution was both pro- and anti-slavery. This is a reflection of the differences of opinions amongst the founders at the time.

The article states.....

It was at this moment that he was most willing to acknowledge the paradoxical nature of the Constitution, and how that document's ambiguities and jarring contradictions--pro-liberty here, pro-slavery there--fed the sectional crisis since both North and South had grounds for seeing their clashing stances on slavery as true to the founders and the Constitution.

Federalist 42 explains the reasoning, the very reasoning cited by Douglas early on in 1851.....yes, the Founders were indeed divided, and yes, the language was sometimes at odds unless you read the attending explanations given by the writers....

Douglass became ardently in favor of the anti-slavery view of the constitution because he understood that this approach was the best one to take in order to achieve his goal of abolishing slavery. It was the most effective way of defeatignthe argumetns of those who wished to proclaim that the constitution intended slavery to remain present in the US.

I agree....he came to understand that he would NEVER have had a platform with which to fight those who would argue in favor of Slavery without that 3/5ths clause...without it the South would have had inordinate congressional powers it did not deserve.

Back to the article....

In pondering his verdict on this debate about the Constitution and slavery, Douglass asked, "Who is right in this contest?" and answered, "so far as the Constitution is concerned.., all are wrong," since the Constitution was neither wholly pro- or anti-slavery but "at war with itself."

It could NOT be wholly one way or the other, hence the compromise.

And there are specific founding fathers who deserve credit for making sure that the language in the constitution did not overtly mention slavery so that this could occur.

But, that does not mean that all of the founders deserve credit for this.

See above.....you see we agree in principle....and I never said "all".
Click to expand...

The US Constitution is a product of compromise. The founders left the slavery not touched. Besides Washington himself was a slaveholder.
 
sorry fellas i thought Presiden george washinton had 317 slaves,maybe i am wrong,but his ancesters come from england,all probs it was in his genes,keep me right guys,

the founding fathers came from the UK as u no,what do u exspect when u get ppl working for nothing,or there abouts,so sad,the English are good at that and u guys just follow on
to this day.

kind regards to u all
mikeey
 
No.

It is possible to interpret the actions of some as "laying the groundwork" for the end of slavery...but they didn't end it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom