America Was Built on Natural Law

[rightwinger]

Thanks for pointing out that the Founders specifically and explicitely recognized slavery in the Constitution.

They didn't. They never mentioned it by name because they did not wish to endorse it. They hated it as much as you hate them.

So as you point out-Sect. 9, Clause 1 doesn't refer to slavery or importing slaves at all

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.

You are being quite obtuse. You have been shown testimony that the founders believed that slavery was against the law of nature and you have been shown proof that the founders took action to end slavery. Your only argument is that SOME of them owned slaves. They all didn't own slaves. Many were active abolitionists.

Evidently not....they codified slavery
Ending importation of slaves is not ending it when you still have four million enslaved in this country

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Now, tell us about the Missouri Compromise

Abolishing the international slave trade does nothing when you can still breed four million American slaves

If they wanted to end slavery, it would not have lasted another 90 years

 

[Syriusly]

Can you show where I said that I thought our founders did not believe in natural law?

Or maybe address my point instead- which you are so desperately avoiding.

Apparently the Natural Law the Founders believed in included slavery and unequal status for women

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

Thanks for pointing out that the Founders specifically and explicitely recognized slavery in the Constitution.

They didn't. They never mentioned it by name because they did not wish to endorse it. They hated it as much as you hate them.

So as you point out-Sect. 9, Clause 1 doesn't refer to slavery or importing slaves at all

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.

You are being quite obtuse. You have been shown testimony that the founders believed that slavery was against the law of nature and you have been shown proof that the founders took action to end slavery. Your only argument is that SOME of them owned slaves. They all didn't own slaves. Many were active abolitionists.

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

I will go back to your original claim- you claimed that the 'Founders' wrote our laws based upon Natural Law- and that Natural Law prohibits slavery.

Then why did our founders write the Constitution to allow slavery- to allow the importation of slaves? Why did up to half of our founders own slaves?

If you are going to claim that our first laws- the Constitution- are based on Natural Law- then you need to explain why the writers of those laws ignored 'Natural Law' when it came to such a significant issue.

Still waiting for you to address my second point.

Still waiting.

 

[Syriusly]

Can you show where I said that I thought our founders did not believe in natural law?

Or maybe address my point instead- which you are so desperately avoiding.

Apparently the Natural Law the Founders believed in included slavery and unequal status for women

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected." Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850, (In the Senate), Page 273

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

So the Founders- great believers in Natural Law- knew that what they did was wrong- but did it anyway- because they hoped that slavery would just go away....

Oh when was the importation of slaves made illegal?

1808- a full twenty years after the 'founders' wrote a Constitution that explicitly allowed Slavery- apparently knowing that they were 'violating Natural Law'

No. That isn't right either. They could not form the union and end slavery at the same time. So they negotiated with the southern states a date that the importation of slaves could be abolished. Then they abolished it at the earliest date allowed per the Constitution.

But you said our nation was founded on Natural Law- and that our Founders all knew natural law- you do realize that our Founders were largely Southern- right?

So our Founders- the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution- supposedly knew- and agreed on what Natural Law was- but also specifically passed laws that also supposedly violated Natural Law- AND ignored that supposed Natural Law themselves

Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the signors of the Constitution- i.e. the Founders- owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson did
George Washington did

Why were they ignoring Natural Law?

Yes, they were. Just as you.

You are still trying to derail the thread and avoid addressing my actual post- rather dishonest for someone who claims to be a Christian.

But you said our nation was founded on Natural Law- and that our Founders all knew natural law- you do realize that our Founders were largely Southern- right?

So our Founders- the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution- supposedly knew- and agreed on what Natural Law was- but also specifically passed laws that also supposedly violated Natural Law- AND ignored that supposed Natural Law themselves

Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the signors of the Constitution- i.e. the Founders- owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson did
George Washington did

Why were they ignoring Natural Law?

 

[Syriusly]

They didn't. They never mentioned it by name because they did not wish to endorse it. They hated it as much as you hate them.

So as you point out-Sect. 9, Clause 1 doesn't refer to slavery or importing slaves at all

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.

You are being quite obtuse. You have been shown testimony that the founders believed that slavery was against the law of nature and you have been shown proof that the founders took action to end slavery. Your only argument is that SOME of them owned slaves. They all didn't own slaves. Many were active abolitionists.

Evidently not....they codified slavery
Ending importation of slaves is not ending it when you still have four million enslaved in this country

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Now, tell us about the Missouri Compromise

Abolishing the international slave trade does nothing when you can still breed four million American slaves

If they wanted to end slavery, it would not have lasted another 90 years

The end of importation of slaves did nothing to reduce the number of slaves- instead it made slaves a better profit center for slave owners who could make more money off of breeding slaves than actually from their labor.

 

[Syriusly]

Ding sure is willing to attack me for 'global warming' but sure isn't willing to respond to actual challenges to his theories.

Why did women have to wait 150 years to get the vote if Natural Law was understood by the founders?

 

[ding]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

You could not ask for a better witness than the Vice President of the Confederacy. He said they were wrong. Why would he lie about what they believed? So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

 

[ding]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

On page 271 of Daniel Webster's speech he states that there were records in existence that support this opinion and that it was a matter of public record. Given that both of these men were much closer to the historical events then you are and given that you have provided zero evidence to the contrary, they are much better witnesses than you are.

Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850, (In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."

 

[ding]

Ding sure is willing to attack me for 'global warming' but sure isn't willing to respond to actual challenges to his theories.

Why did women have to wait 150 years to get the vote if Natural Law was understood by the founders?

I have no idea what you are talking about, I am pointing out the incongruity and hypocrisy of your argument. Don't take it personal. Those are your beliefs. Don't be ashamed of your beliefs. Be proud of them. Beliefs not worth owning are beliefs not worth having.

 

[ding]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished. Then they abolished it at the earliest date possible. You didn't even know about this clause until today. Then in 1789 after the Constitution was ratified they passed the Northwest Ordinance which forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States. You didn't know about this law until today either. So clearly they did take actions to end slavery. Your Party on the other hand was the Party responsible for expanding slavery. Shame on you.

 

[ding]

I will go back to your original claim- you claimed that the 'Founders' wrote our laws based upon Natural Law- and that Natural Law prohibits slavery.

Then why did our founders write the Constitution to allow slavery- to allow the importation of slaves? Why did up to half of our founders own slaves?

If you are going to claim that our first laws- the Constitution- are based on Natural Law- then you need to explain why the writers of those laws ignored 'Natural Law' when it came to such a significant issue.

Still waiting for you to address my second point.

Still waiting.

I already addressed these points in posts #56. You do realize that the legal profession recognizes the transition from Natural Law to Legal Positivism, right?

 

[ding]

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected." Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850, (In the Senate), Page 273

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

So the Founders- great believers in Natural Law- knew that what they did was wrong- but did it anyway- because they hoped that slavery would just go away....

Oh when was the importation of slaves made illegal?

1808- a full twenty years after the 'founders' wrote a Constitution that explicitly allowed Slavery- apparently knowing that they were 'violating Natural Law'

No. That isn't right either. They could not form the union and end slavery at the same time. So they negotiated with the southern states a date that the importation of slaves could be abolished. Then they abolished it at the earliest date allowed per the Constitution.

But you said our nation was founded on Natural Law- and that our Founders all knew natural law- you do realize that our Founders were largely Southern- right?

So our Founders- the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution- supposedly knew- and agreed on what Natural Law was- but also specifically passed laws that also supposedly violated Natural Law- AND ignored that supposed Natural Law themselves

Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the signors of the Constitution- i.e. the Founders- owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson did
George Washington did

Why were they ignoring Natural Law?

Yes, they were. Just as you.

You are still trying to derail the thread and avoid addressing my actual post- rather dishonest for someone who claims to be a Christian.

But you said our nation was founded on Natural Law- and that our Founders all knew natural law- you do realize that our Founders were largely Southern- right?

So our Founders- the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution- supposedly knew- and agreed on what Natural Law was- but also specifically passed laws that also supposedly violated Natural Law- AND ignored that supposed Natural Law themselves

Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the signors of the Constitution- i.e. the Founders- owned slaves.

Thomas Jefferson did
George Washington did

Why were they ignoring Natural Law?

If anyone is trying to derail this thread it is you. Here is what the OP says and here is my justification for saying that America was built on Natural Law. I believe the fact that the founders took action to end slavery proves this point. You on the other hand can't look past the fact that SOME of them owned slaves. But the reality is they were the ones who put ending slavery in motion. They wrote the DOI and the Constitution is a way to make sure this would happen. They passed laws that would make sure this would happen. There are public records and and testimony of witnesses which corroborates their actions and intentions.

America Was Built on Natural Law
As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

 

[ding]

So as you point out-Sect. 9, Clause 1 doesn't refer to slavery or importing slaves at all

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.

You are being quite obtuse. You have been shown testimony that the founders believed that slavery was against the law of nature and you have been shown proof that the founders took action to end slavery. Your only argument is that SOME of them owned slaves. They all didn't own slaves. Many were active abolitionists.

Evidently not....they codified slavery
Ending importation of slaves is not ending it when you still have four million enslaved in this country

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Now, tell us about the Missouri Compromise

Abolishing the international slave trade does nothing when you can still breed four million American slaves

If they wanted to end slavery, it would not have lasted another 90 years

The end of importation of slaves did nothing to reduce the number of slaves- instead it made slaves a better profit center for slave owners who could make more money off of breeding slaves than actually from their labor.

Don't be silly. It absolutely did something. Why do you keep forgetting about the Northwest Ordinance? You keep making silly arguments in a vacuum rather than seeing the entire picture.

 

[ding]

They didn't. They never mentioned it by name because they did not wish to endorse it. They hated it as much as you hate them.

So as you point out-Sect. 9, Clause 1 doesn't refer to slavery or importing slaves at all

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.

You are being quite obtuse. You have been shown testimony that the founders believed that slavery was against the law of nature and you have been shown proof that the founders took action to end slavery. Your only argument is that SOME of them owned slaves. They all didn't own slaves. Many were active abolitionists.

Evidently not....they codified slavery
Ending importation of slaves is not ending it when you still have four million enslaved in this country

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Now, tell us about the Missouri Compromise

Abolishing the international slave trade does nothing when you can still breed four million American slaves

If they wanted to end slavery, it would not have lasted another 90 years

By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress. The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gots an idea, bro!

Define "Natural Law" and "Divine Law' with definitions accepted by a reasonable man standard.

Next show specific examples where Thomas or George of Jumping Jimmy say, "I believe in Divine Law" and "I believe in an evangelical Jesus."

We are waiting.

Read the OP. It's there, brother.

You failed the OP is the point. We are waiting for you to make your case. You have not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

On page 271 of Daniel Webster's speech he states that there were records in existence that support this opinion and that it was a matter of public record. Given that both of these men were much closer to the historical events then you are and given that you have provided zero evidence to the contrary, they are much better witnesses than you are.

Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850, (In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."

Daniel Webster was not a Founder.

 

[ding]

Gots an idea, bro!

Define "Natural Law" and "Divine Law' with definitions accepted by a reasonable man standard.

Next show specific examples where Thomas or George of Jumping Jimmy say, "I believe in Divine Law" and "I believe in an evangelical Jesus."

We are waiting.

Read the OP. It's there, brother.

You failed the OP is the point. We are waiting for you to make your case. You have not.

See it however you want, brother. You are a subversive who hates America and our heritage. I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way.

 

[Syriusly]

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

They didn't abolish the slave trade- they prohibited the importation of new slaves- in 1808. After writing a Constitution which allowed the importation of slaves for 20 years.

IF the Founders were against slavery- why did they allow slavery in the United States?

If they were again slavery- why did they own slaves themselves?

Because they were not able to form a better union any other way, but they did take actions to end slavery.

Wait- if they were the founders- why could they not 'form a better union any other way'?

If all of the founders were Natural Law believing, anti-slavery advocates- then they could have written the Constitution exactly that way.

If they believed in Natural Law- and Natural Law said that slavery was wrong- why did they own slaves- in the case of Thomas Jefferson- for his entire life?

 

[ding]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

On page 271 of Daniel Webster's speech he states that there were records in existence that support this opinion and that it was a matter of public record. Given that both of these men were much closer to the historical events then you are and given that you have provided zero evidence to the contrary, they are much better witnesses than you are.

Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850, (In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."

Daniel Webster was not a Founder.

He was a witness, moron.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished. Then they abolished it at the earliest date possible. You didn't even know about this clause until today. Then in 1789 after the Constitution was ratified they passed the Northwest Ordinance which forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States. You didn't know about this law until today either. So clearly they did take actions to end slavery. Your Party on the other hand was the Party responsible for expanding slavery. Shame on you.

Stop the lying, dingle berry. Syriusly was talking about slavery, not the slave trade. They did nothing to end slavery, but they did recognize it in the Constitution, a document of death, to some true christian abolitionists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I will go back to your original claim- you claimed that the 'Founders' wrote our laws based upon Natural Law- and that Natural Law prohibits slavery.

Then why did our founders write the Constitution to allow slavery- to allow the importation of slaves? Why did up to half of our founders own slaves?

If you are going to claim that our first laws- the Constitution- are based on Natural Law- then you need to explain why the writers of those laws ignored 'Natural Law' when it came to such a significant issue.

Still waiting for you to address my second point.

Still waiting.

I already addressed these points in posts #56. You do realize that the legal profession recognizes the transition from Natural Law to Legal Positivism, right?

No, dingle berry, you did not.