The atheists thing again

[LongHaul]

Scout are you saying the Constitution sanctions slavery?

LongHaul

[TheScout]

Yes.

 

Art I, Sec 3

 

"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."

 

Art 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."

 

Art 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."

[dave.424]

Re: SSScout's post 4/10 at 2:40 pm

 

Thanks for the welcome. So far, I haven't seen any real, outright rude or non-Scout like treatment of fellow posters. In general, the discussions have seemed to be civil, even when folks disagree..

 

 

What's the point of who was European and who wasn't? Unless you intend to imply that Europeans are intrinsically more xenophobic than the other more "enlightened" people of the world. Based on your comments "the people", I guess this isn't your intent. Even for your purposes of illustration, all that matters was that Pilate was a member of the ruling majority.

 

I must disagree with you that Jesus had no power. He was not a victim of circumstance, but purposely used those supposedly in power to further his own plan of salvation.

 

I'd also have to dispute your portrayal of Jesus as "Mr. Inclusiveness". While it is God's will that all shall be saved, the way is narrow and no one comes to Father except through him.

 

Although he spent much time with "sinners" and the outcast, he never condoned sinful behavior in an effort to make people feel good about themselves. He would tell them to go and sin no more.

 

Folks should be careful when trying to invoke the name of Christ to defend actions that he would not approve of such as atheism or false religions.

 

Hey, I didn't bring Jesus in to this discussion. I'm just replying to those that have.

 

YIS...

[SSScout]

Oy veys mir...

I'm not sure I have boots tall enough to wade thru all this...

 

In no particular order...

I was referring to Jesus' having no POLITICAL power, not spiritual power. Yes, he allowed a lot to happen to fulfill the prophecies and his Fathers will, but still, he had no POLITICAL power. And that is what is spoken of here.

 

Constitutional law... as opposed to moral rectitude...

The Great Compromise allowed the southern states to count the SLAVES as less than a whole human. And then not allow them to vote, because they (slaves) were not citizens, but "property". Back then, the Constitution Acknowledged slavery, but it's hard to say that it CONDONED it. Most of our Founding Fathers mentioned the moral evil of slavery, but had no easy way to end it. So the Constitution did acknowledge the holding of Humans as Property, not as Humans. But then so did the Bible (acknowledge, not condone...). Another topic.

 

A whole lot of people worked to correct that error.

 

I like the previous observation that the Hebrews were given the Ten Commandments, telling them "Thou shalt not kill" and then were instructed to go and annihilate an entire population so they (the Hebrew people) could inhabit that land. Makes me shiver.

 

So, when it comes to personal relations, political action, social exchanges, language used, interpretation of law.... WWJD?

 

TBC...

[dave.424]

SSScout: "I was referring to Jesus' having no POLITICAL power, not spiritual power. Yes, he allowed a lot to happen to fulfill the prophecies and his Fathers will, but still, he had no POLITICAL power. And that is what is spoken of here."

 

Yes, but you still portrayed him as a poor, hapless victim of the "the man". He may not have had political power, but he was in the position he was by his own choosing. I'm just saying that perhaps not a good analogy for someone who is denied a job or a home based on their religious beliefs.

 

[packsaddle]

I'm sensing that the thread is about to go down a path we've already taken. So in order to head that off, I invite anyone interested in revisiting the myth that the Civil War was not about slavery - to regurgitate the old thread and continue there. My first post on it was:

RE: Was Robert E. Lee Morally Straight?

Posted: Friday, 9/2/2005: 7:24:26 AM

But there were a couple of pages prior to that, discussing whether Robert E. Lee would have met the membership criteria. It was fun. I just hope someone comes up with something new if we restart it.

[TheScout]

SSScout, you seem to be a little off in your history of the Constitutional Convention. The Great Compromise dealt with the balance between large and small states. It was the middle ground between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan.

 

This is what decided population would be used as a basis for determining representation in the House. The 3/5 compromise followed on how slave property should be counted.

[packsaddle]

And you are being a little unfair in yours. The Great Compromise, also called the Connecticut compromise, or Sherman's Compromise did establish the bicameral system we have today. But it left a problem of how to count slaves and the southern colonies' concerns were answered with a subsidiary compromise exactly the way SSScout mentioned. Some historians include this 3/5 compromise as part of the Great Compromise because they were both related to concerns over representation. In yet another compromise, the states agreed that importation of slaves would stop in 1808. There was much political and economic intrigue regarding these issues. The slave issue would return many times, eventually culminating in war.

Edited part: change in wording.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[TheScout]

Packsaddle, perhaps you are correct, but I have never saw the 3/5 Compromise referred to as part of the Great Compromise. I was just trying to point out that if you reference that exclusively as the Great Compromise one is way off base in telling what it truly was about.

 

Reference: http://www.historycentral.com/NN/Gcompromise.html

 

It seems like you are a little off in your history as well. The Constitution did not ban the slave trade after 1808. It merely agreed that Congress would not prohibit it prior to that date.

[packsaddle]

While you are correct in your statement, "The Constitution did not ban the slave trade after 1808", again you have misrepresented what I wrote. I did not write that the Constitution banned the international slave trade after 1808. Rather, I wrote that as part of another compromise, the states agreed to ban it, but not before 1808. And on 1 January 1808, ban it they did.

 

If you will read the discussions between the delegates regarding all these issues you will realize that there was linkage among all the issues for each and every one of these compromises. All of these issues were discussed simultaneously even if the individual agreements (that we call compromises) were voted on in sequence. It was with the understanding, for example, that the slave issues would be resolved that allowed other compromises to be agreed on. Otherwise the Great Compromise might have failed, indeed it passed by only one vote. And the Constitution might not have been ratified, at least not by three of the Southern states.

 

With respect to the specific compromise regarding the international slave trade, some southern states were in favor of banning it (Virginia and Maryland for example) and others (three in particular) were against. Most of the non-slave states were in favor of banning it as well. All of the delegates knew the implications for representation in the Legislative branch and these discussions can hardly be separated from one another in any meaningful way. In order to understand the end result, one must understand, simultaneously, all of the issues as well as the chronology of their discussion.

[TheScout]

Packsaddle,

 

I don't disagee with anything that you are saying. I just stated the Great Compromise was originally misrepresented. To a person educated about the Constitutional Convention, they would associate it with the conflict between the big states and the little states, not the 3/5 agreement.

 

In yet another compromise, the states agreed that importation of slaves would stop in 1808.

 

Though I do not think I misrepresented you about the slave trade clause. You stated "I did not write that the Constitution banned the international slave trade after 1808."

 

But you wrote previously, "In yet another compromise, the states agreed that importation of slaves would stop in 1808."

[packsaddle]

And you see a contradiction? The Constitution DIDN'T ban the international slave trade but it set a limit. The states DID ban it...at the time agreed in the compromise.

[TheScout]

I don't follow your point. Some states continued the trade for a while after the Convention.

[packsaddle]

In brief, and assuming we're straight on the Connecticut and 3/5 compromises:

The question of the slave trade was important because three Southern states (NC, SC, and GA) saw the potential to import their way to greater representation (and political power) using the international slave trade. Most non-slave states supported an outright ban as did VA and MD. Those two slave states supported the ban because they had invested in non-international trade and were in the business of breeding for market within the states. They saw the international trade as a threat to their political power in slightly different terms because if the international trade was banned, THEY would be the dominant force in the slave market (think of it as Reagans 'magic of the free market').

 

BUT, all of the states understood that they needed ALL of the states to ratify the Constitution and NC, SC, and GA successfully held the rest to a compromise. Another part of the compromise was to end taxes on the trade as well (those crafty Southerners really knew how to drive a hard bargain;)). And as a result of all of these compromises, all the states ratified the Constitution.

The wording of the Constitution was such as to establish a time, before which such a ban on international slave trade could not be enacted. Such ban could not occur before 1808. All the states agreed to these terms and it was clear to all the states that there was intent to ban the international slave trade once the requisite 20 years had passed. And they did.

So....the Constitution did NOT ban the international slave trade, the states DID but only after the limit placed by the Constitution had passed. The INTERNAL slave trade continued up until the Civil War.

 

And we got here from the atheist thing again...how?

 

[John-in-KC]

TheScout,

 

At the time of writing, yes, you are correct, the Constitution sanctioned slavery.

 

That detail was fixed by the 13th Amendment:

 

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Since your post, by omitting this, implied the original articles were still in force, I am compelled to point out the error.