@farmerman,
Dear Gomer, you are a hopeless senile drunk . If the constitution doesn't have slavery in it, why did it need an amendment to end it ? Don't give me any bullshit about how you were born there so you must know everything . You have used that argument before ....
The Constitution of the United States :
Article I, Section 2, negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.
Article I, Section 9, forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that an individual state's laws considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808 .
Article IV, Section 2 , As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved of this section which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.
Article V, prohibited amending those portions of Article I, Section 9 before 1808.
The effect of these laws concerning slavery was to increase the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation. The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years. a tax of ten dollars each was allowed for each of these 'other persons" (and which was immediately imposed, after ratification). By prohibiting Federal banning of the slave trade for two decades, the constitution effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.
Yep . Gomer will argue with some dribble about what he meant . Watch .
