America’s Founders Were Deeply Religious

[Ben Thomson]

One nation under God.

THANK YOU!


Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!


for PROVING all conservatives are DERANGED LUNATICS!


here we have a thread (from a conservative)TRYING TO PROVE that the USA is a "christian nation" by claiming "our FOUNDERS WERE DEEPLY RELIGIOUS"

apparently the point being "our founders were deeply religious christians so that PROVES the USA IS IS IS IS IS a CHRISTIAN NATION, that the bible should be used as the source of all law and that all NONchristians are NOT citizens and do NOT have rights!"

all based on what they believe "our founding fathers" believed.......


but here comes the good part;


"one nation under god"

was NOT our original motto!

nope....(get ready.....) our FOUNDING FATHERS (who a moment ago you thought were so fkn important) specifically chose "E PLURIBUS UNUM" as our motto.


conservative christians pissed all over that and changed it to "in god we trust"

so what our FOUNDING FATHERS BELIEVED was really important

until our founding fathers believed something contrary to what conservative evangelical christians want..........

then it was "fuk the founding fathers"

And 'one nation under god' was not even in our original pledge of allegiance until religious zealots forced it in during the 50s.

 

[Ben Thomson]

(You should try to learn how to use the editing tools provided by the forum editor.0

Here is the true quote from article seven of the US Constitution.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
...give your alternate explanation for the reference to 'our Lord.'

The reference to "our Lord," is to comply with standard document dating technique of the era. Notice their intention to change the standard to recognize the founding of America as the new standard for the year count - they did this to several later documents, as well. I cannot recall which ones.

My statement was that the reference appears in the Constituiton.

You have needlessly verified what I wrote.


For further edification:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. "

Christianity is in the Constitution - Apologetics Press

Those who insist that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation” point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular propaganda since the 1960s has been that “the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any...

www.apologeticspress.org

If I may degress a little, how are non-Christans and atheists allowed to testify in court? The bible being the core of taking the oath to tell the truth

 

[PoliticalChic]

That refers to the Judeo-Christian faith. Compare this fact with the elites of the major political party today, and the schools they oversee, teaching quite the reverse.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”



Last week Att’y Gen William Barr gave a speech about the importance of having a religious America. And, of course, he was attacked for it.


1.“United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School [enemies of religion] raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described.

…RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.”

…writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell.

“From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.



How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”
America’s great experiment with freedom needs religion
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



Faith is inseparable from liberty and freedom.

Rabid anti-religion bigots attacked Barr....hoping that all of America renounce the views of our Founders, that which made our nation the shining city on the hill.

If you agree with Barr about the relationship between religion and liberty, you cannot, of course, vote Democrat.

So deeply religious they put it in the Constitution that the government would not be allowed to promote any religion.

Can you quote that ....or are you simply one more government school grad who has never read a book.

That indoctrination sure is hard to shake off, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

That refers to the Judeo-Christian faith. Compare this fact with the elites of the major political party today, and the schools they oversee, teaching quite the reverse.

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundamentalist hate group.”



Last week Att’y Gen William Barr gave a speech about the importance of having a religious America. And, of course, he was attacked for it.


1.“United States Attorney General William Barr spoke at Notre Dame Law School [enemies of religion] raced to warn us of our impending doom. Also as per usual, in their screeds were seeds of the very things Barr described.

…RefuseFascism.org, which proclaimed in a headline, “At Notre Dame, William Barr Lays Out a Christian Fascist Nightmare.”

…writer Joan Walsh described Barr as "a paranoid right-wing Catholic ideologue who won't respect the separation of church and state." She mocked the Catholic men's service group Knights of Columbus (of which Barr has been a member) as "a patriarchal cosplay group." Walsh's distaste for Catholicism is matched only by her evident loathing of evangelicals. She writes: "(I)t's worth noting that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney were all also raised Catholic -- but Pence and Pompeo went one better than Barr and joined the official GOP denomination, White Evangelical Protestantism ... I couldn't wish these guys better company to spend time with in hell.

“From the Founding Era onward, there was strong consensus about the centrality of religious liberty in the United States.

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the Framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government.

In his renowned 1785 pamphlet, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” James Madison described religious liberty as “a right towards men” but “a duty towards the Creator,” and a “duty….precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.



How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.”
America’s great experiment with freedom needs religion
A Moral Citizenry Is Not a Theocracy



Faith is inseparable from liberty and freedom.

Rabid anti-religion bigots attacked Barr....hoping that all of America renounce the views of our Founders, that which made our nation the shining city on the hill.

If you agree with Barr about the relationship between religion and liberty, you cannot, of course, vote Democrat.

another attempt to take away my rights?


ALL Americans have freedom of religion

that means they have every right to have NO religion

that means YOU do NOT get to FORCE PEOPLE to be christians

or to be subject to idiotic christian morals as law

you stinking christian fascist

Can you quote where I said you DIDN'T have the right not to have any religion?

No?

So you just wrote "that means they have every right to have NO religion" in support of your true religion, Militant Secularism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fallwell is a good example of what happens to so called religioius zealous with cash & time to spare. You pull your pud as the old lady gets plowed by a poolboy. And we're supposed to follow creeps like Fallwell into hell? No thanks.

It is not just the "religious," who get fooled. You lame brained libritards trust the demented Democrats to no end.

Did Trump get fooled? Or did he know Fallwell was playing switch off as the poolboy laid pipe into the missus?

So, it's your claim that those with your sort of 'religion' are all filled with integrity?

 

[PoliticalChic]

One nation under God.

THANK YOU!


Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!


for PROVING all conservatives are DERANGED LUNATICS!


here we have a thread (from a conservative)TRYING TO PROVE that the USA is a "christian nation" by claiming "our FOUNDERS WERE DEEPLY RELIGIOUS"

apparently the point being "our founders were deeply religious christians so that PROVES the USA IS IS IS IS IS a CHRISTIAN NATION, that the bible should be used as the source of all law and that all NONchristians are NOT citizens and do NOT have rights!"

all based on what they believe "our founding fathers" believed.......


but here comes the good part;


"one nation under god"

was NOT our original motto!

nope....(get ready.....) our FOUNDING FATHERS (who a moment ago you thought were so fkn important) specifically chose "E PLURIBUS UNUM" as our motto.


conservative christians pissed all over that and changed it to "in god we trust"

so what our FOUNDING FATHERS BELIEVED was really important

until our founding fathers believed something contrary to what conservative evangelical christians want..........

then it was "fuk the founding fathers"

And 'one nation under god' was not even in our original pledge of allegiance until religious zealots forced it in during the 50s.

Seems you're copacetic with the results of political systems based on atheism, huh?


Did you miss the 20th century, with your sort slaughtering over 100 million men, women and children?

Don't be ignorant your whole life.....take a day off.

 

[PoliticalChic]

(You should try to learn how to use the editing tools provided by the forum editor.0

Here is the true quote from article seven of the US Constitution.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
...give your alternate explanation for the reference to 'our Lord.'

The reference to "our Lord," is to comply with standard document dating technique of the era. Notice their intention to change the standard to recognize the founding of America as the new standard for the year count - they did this to several later documents, as well. I cannot recall which ones.

My statement was that the reference appears in the Constituiton.

You have needlessly verified what I wrote.


For further edification:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. "

Christianity is in the Constitution - Apologetics Press

Those who insist that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation” point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular propaganda since the 1960s has been that “the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any...

www.apologeticspress.org

If I may degress a little, how are non-Christans and atheists allowed to testify in court? The bible being the core of taking the oath to tell the truth

You're really a moron, aren't you.


No one need swear on any religious text....merely swear to tell the truth.

 

[Clipper]

Fallwell is a good example of what happens to so called religioius zealous with cash & time to spare. You pull your pud as the old lady gets plowed by a poolboy. And we're supposed to follow creeps like Fallwell into hell? No thanks.

It is not just the "religious," who get fooled. You lame brained libritards trust the demented Democrats to no end.

Did Trump get fooled? Or did he know Fallwell was playing switch off as the poolboy laid pipe into the missus?

So, it's your claim that those with your sort of 'religion' are all filled with integrity?

Why do you Trumptards worship a criminally insane conman who's also an atheist? Spare the rest of us your Bible thumping bullshit considering your credibility is under the rock that Trump lives under.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fallwell is a good example of what happens to so called religioius zealous with cash & time to spare. You pull your pud as the old lady gets plowed by a poolboy. And we're supposed to follow creeps like Fallwell into hell? No thanks.

It is not just the "religious," who get fooled. You lame brained libritards trust the demented Democrats to no end.

Did Trump get fooled? Or did he know Fallwell was playing switch off as the poolboy laid pipe into the missus?

So, it's your claim that those with your sort of 'religion' are all filled with integrity?

Why do you Trumptards worship a criminally insane conman who's also an atheist? Spare the rest of us your Bible thumping bullshit considering your credibility is under the rock that Trump lives under.

1. Early on, I posted this rule for understanding Democrats/Liberals/Progressives...you.....
Rule #2
To know what the Left is guilty of, just watch what they blame the other side of doing.


2. And that is the explanation for this: "...you Trumptards worship ..."
The only 'worship' is by you Leftists.....after all you called Hussein Obama, 'god, Jesus, and the messiah.'

How'd that turn out?


3. "Spare the rest of us your Bible thumping.."

And here we find the modern equivalent of earlier Leftists:

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY



4. For historical reference, America was founded on the very opposite beliefs:

The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as your sort would refer to them today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”


5. And.....try to avoid the juvenile vulgarity....it indicates you know you have lost the argument.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

They wrote into the constitution the earliest date they could abolish the importation of slaves and then abolished it at the earliest date. And you think I need to try again. You try again, dummy.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

They wrote into the constitution the earliest date they could abolish the importation of slaves and then abolished it at the earliest date. And you think I need to try again. You try again, dummy.

They abolished it a hundred years later and it took a war. That's not whatever you said that you didn't back up again.

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

 

[ding]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[Taz]

They were so religious they owned slaves.

Probably not too bright to Bump this nearly Year OLD thread up just to say that.
But thread now being where it is... 'Original intent' was, we can be sure, was that they were not included in second amendment rights.
That would have been unthinkable to them.
And with that original intent still in effect. Murders (and robbery) would be down 50% nationwide, shootings probably 70%.

`

You are as ignorant as Taz and Moonglow about the Founders.

And you're ignorant of how to back up ANYTHING you say.

You do realize that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish, right?

Or do I need to back this up, dummy?

It didn’t until much later. Please try again soon.

^dummy has nothing. He gonna cry soon.

Sez the guy who can't back anything up.

It's OK if you are going to cry.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that provided that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect on January 1, 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Just like I thought, it doesn't back up what you said about the FFs, nor does it have anything to do with abolishing slavery. But nice try.