America Was Built on Natural Law

[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?

Hardly- you gave it a hand wave.

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.

If they were the 'founders' and the founders all recognized 'natural law' and the laws of the country are based upon 'natural law'- why was slavery legal?

Again- your position is that the laws creating the United States were based on Natural Law- and among the laws creating the United States were laws on slavery.

Now you are acknowledging that the laws of the United States were not exactly based upon Natural Law.

I really do appreciate you guys giving me this platform. The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date, they passed the NW 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 and we have two witnesses who corroborate these actions and their intentions One of which disagreed with the founders and the other one who pointed to physical historical records. Frederick Douglas also believed that the founding fathers wrote the constitution as an anti-slavery document.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are now spamming because you have nothing else. Stephens was not a Founder, as you said. He loved slavery, which you denied.

Keep spamming and get reported.

 

[ding]

The facts are clear. It is your character assassinations which are murky. I wouldn't expect anything else from a communist. SNIP

You are now a hypocrite and lacking in integrity.

No. You are the kind of person who needs to be put down. Eventually you will darwinize yourself out of existence and the world will be a better place for it. It's just a matter of time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are clear. It is your character assassinations which are murky. I wouldn't expect anything else from a communist. SNIP

You are now a hypocrite and lacking in integrity.

No. You are the kind of person who needs to be put down. Eventually you will darwinize yourself out of existence and the world will be a better place for it. It's just a matter of time.

You are the specimen, dingle. You have been completely refuted and your spamming reported. You character assassinate then cry when dealt with accordingly.

 

[ding]

You are now spamming because you have nothing else. Stephens was not a Founder, as you said. He loved slavery, which you denied.

Keep spamming and get reported.

Report it then. This is my OP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are now spamming because you have nothing else. Stephens was not a Founder, as you said. He loved slavery, which you denied.

Keep spamming and get reported.

Report it then. This is my OP.

You cannot spam your OP.

 

[ding]

You are now spamming because you have nothing else. Stephens was not a Founder, as you said. He loved slavery, which you denied.

Keep spamming and get reported.

Report it then. This is my OP.

You cannot spam your OP.

I'm not. I'm defeating yours with facts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are now spamming because you have nothing else. Stephens was not a Founder, as you said. He loved slavery, which you denied.

Keep spamming and get reported.

Report it then. This is my OP.

You cannot spam your OP.

I'm not. I'm defeating yours with facts.

No, you are spamming. You have made assertions without solid evidence. When shown that Stephens and Jefferson and Webster did not support your claim, you keep posting the same stuff.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

 

[Syriusly]

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History was an advocacy FOR slavery by Alexander Stephens, by the Vice President of the Confederacy, but according to dingle berry, a Founder.

That's also a subversive tactic. The Foinders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

 

[ding]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

I'm a really bad Christian, Jake. The reality, Jake, is that you are a militant atheist and you are just here to amuse yourself. Your religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains your extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame you and inspire you to join popular movements. You condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. You practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Your hostility towards traditional religions is obvious to all and is that of an animosity between a rival religion. You can be identified by your external locus of control. You worship science but are the first to reject it.

 

[Syriusly]

You are now spamming because you have nothing else. Stephens was not a Founder, as you said. He loved slavery, which you denied.

Keep spamming and get reported.

Report it then. This is my OP.

You cannot spam your OP.

I'm not. I'm defeating yours with facts.

No, you are spamming. You have made assertions without evidence. When shown that Stephens and Jefferson did not support claim, you keep posting the same stuff.

lol, I think you got that backwards. I'm pretty happy how this has played out. Tell me... which of these is not a fact?

The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date, .

Well of course those are not the facts

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States.

 

[ding]

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History was an advocacy FOR slavery by Alexander Stephens, by the Vice President of the Confederacy, but according to dingle berry, a Founder.

That's also a subversive tactic. The Foinders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

 

[Syriusly]

You are foolish then.

Are you a Christian? You don't demonstrate it at all.

I'm a really bad Christian, Jake. The reality, Jake, is that you are a militant atheist and you are just here to amuse yourself. Your religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains your extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame you and inspire you to join popular movements. You condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. You practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Your hostility towards traditional religions is obvious to all and is that of an animosity between a rival religion. You can be identified by your external locus of control. You worship science but are the first to reject it.

Wow you are a bad Christian.


There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue

 

[Syriusly]

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History was an advocacy FOR slavery by Alexander Stephens, by the Vice President of the Confederacy, but according to dingle berry, a Founder.

That's also a subversive tactic. The Foinders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

 

[Syriusly]

You cannot spam your OP.

I'm not. I'm defeating yours with facts.

No, you are spamming. You have made assertions without evidence. When shown that Stephens and Jefferson did not support claim, you keep posting the same stuff.

lol, I think you got that backwards. I'm pretty happy how this has played out. Tell me... which of these is not a fact?

The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date, .

Well of course those are not the facts

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States.

Again, your dishonesty of not taking all of the facts into consideration leads you to idiotic conclusions. The Founders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Wow- now you are just flat out lying.

The Founders wrote the Constitution that guaranteed the right of slave importation for 20 years.
The next generation abolished the importation of slaves, once the guaranteed right of slave importation expired.

Remember- the Founders wrote the Constitution with a guarantee of the right to import slaves- for at least 20 years- and left it up to the next generation to decide whether to ban slave imports- or not.

The Slave trade of course continued legally within the United States

 

[ding]

Dingle will simply spam you, Syriusly, because he can't respond beyond his basic OP argument without getting his rebuttals rejected.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy how this little debate has played out. I'm more than happy to let others judge for themselves. Just remember that at any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success and failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure. I am more than happy to give you the opportunity to ingrain your failed behaviors because I know what your outcome will be.

 

[Syriusly]

All of these posts and Dingle still hasn't addressed Natural Law - the Constitution- and women.

Despite me pointing it out to him half a dozen times.

Almost like he is dodging the question.

 

[ding]

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History was an advocacy FOR slavery by Alexander Stephens, by the Vice President of the Confederacy, but according to dingle berry, a Founder.

That's also a subversive tactic. The Foinders wrote into the constitution the earliest date that the slave trade could be abolished, they abolished the slave trade at the earliest date,.

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

The slave trade was commonly know as the importation of slaves. That was what was abolished. You didn't even know it until today.

Did the trade in slaves stop when importation of slaves was stopped?

Neither of those statements are true.

• The 'Founders' wrote a section in the Constitution which absolutely allowed the importation of slaves without restriction for 20 years-
• Article 1 Section 9 of the United States Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years. and left it to the next generation to decide whether to allow- or not allow slave imports.
  
• The slave trade was not abolished- at all.
• The slave trade continued without constraint within the United States- aided in part by the Constitution- which in Section IV, article 2 protects the rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned

No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If the laws of the United States are based upon Natural Law- why did the Constitution have a provision in it requiring States to return escaped slaves?

No. I already explained why. 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.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia


The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act