5
   

Leftist attack on the US Constitution

 
 
H2O MAN
 
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 09:57 am


Our founders, slavery and the leftist attack on our Constitution



By Neal Boortz

Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she said that the founding fathers of this country “worked tirelessly” to end slavery. She’s been pretty much under attack for that statement for the past four or five days. I promised to address this issue on my show today … so here goes:

As we begin this discussion on slavery, the founding fathers and our Constitution -- know this. Most liberals -- and by most we mean close to 100% of the progs you would find in and around any major college or university campus, and pretty much the same percentage living and working in Washington DC -- absolutely and completely despise our Constitution. They want it gone. The want it out of the way, invalidated and ignored. I guess you could say that liberals want the Constitution to be declared unconstitutional.

Why?

The Constitution is in the way ... always in the way of the leftist agenda. The Tenth Amendment, though largely ignored, looms as a threat to the liberal dream of an all-powerful centralized government – that antiquated document written by white men. All it would take is one or two new Supreme Court justices who believe the 10th Amendment actually means what it says to turn the liberal big-government agenda on its head and return the bulk of American governance to the states, where it belongs.

To progs the Second Amendment conjures images of armed patriots determined to preserve their personal liberty by force, if necessary. When your entire political philosophy is focused on centralized government power, the idea of the great unwashed actually being able to protect themselves from tyranny can be, shall we say, a little unsettling.

The liberal statist agenda is, therefore, to denigrate the Constitution to the point that the dumb masses – who sadly make up the bulk of the American electorate, look upon it as a horribly flawed document, badly in need of revision at best, and a complete rewrite at worse. You will grow old looking for a liberal to sing the praises of the Constitution – a document that set in motion and created the framework for the greatest exercise in self-government this world has ever seen.

But how to really demonize the Constitution and the men who wrote it? Easy … do what liberals have been doing so very well for decades. Play the race card. Tie our Constitution and our founders to slavery. If they’re connected in any way to slavery, then any works they do – no matter how good – are suspect and simply must be thrown in history’s garbage can. Liberals believe that if they manage to tie slavery to the Constitution, then the Constitution will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people. You can almost hear the argument now. “The Constitution? You support the Constitution? So I guess that means you support slavery too, right? You’re a racist, and anyone who believes in the Constitution is a racist!” I can almost hear the words coming out of the mouth of some prog like Al Sharpton, Dick Durbin James Clyburn, Shelia Jackson-Lee or Maxine Waters (chose your own loon) now!

So ... was Michelle Bachman right? Did our founding fathers work tirelessly to end slavery? Well, some did -- others not so much. But that’s not the real point here. A thorough reading of history leaves no doubt that the founding fathers were adamantly opposed to Slavery, and determined to end it. Here, though, is where the progs screw up the narrative. Being strenuously opposed to slavery is one thing. Developing a working plan to end slavery is another. For instance -- do you just want to end slavery in just the Northern colonies or states? Or do you want to see it ended in all of the 13 states. If your ultimate goal is to end slavery in the South as well, then it would certainly behoove you to make sure that the southern colonies were part of the battle for independence and then the newly formed United States of America.

The founding fathers that liberals just love to denigrate knew that if they insisted on an immediate end of slavery, the southern colonies would take a hike. With those colonies not being a part of the union, the anti-slavery forces from the North would lose all leverage over them. Historian H.A. Ohline (now pontificating at William & Mary) wrote: “It would have been impossible to establish a national government in the 18th Century without recognizing slavery in some way.” So it really looked like the choice was a United States of the north without slavery, a United States of the south with slavery --- or some middle ground is sought that would allow for the fight for independence and the founding of our nation while leaving the slavery battle for another day.

Even before the Declaration of Independence our founders were on record as opposing slavery. The General Articles of Association were adopted in 1774, and in that document the importation or purchase of slaves was forbidden after January 1, 1775. One year later the Declaration of Independence was originally written to include a section denouncing slavery. This portion was eventually removed because the document needed a unanimous vote for approval, and at the time Georgia and South Carolina refused to vote for the Declaration of Independence with the following paragraph included:

“…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold,] he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another…”

This paragraph appeared in the original version of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. When it came time to draft the Constitution of the United States, the theory is that the Founding Fathers were willing to compromise on the issue of slavery because A) They knew that Georgia and South Carolina would never give in, considering their economies relied on the institution and B) Those opposed to slavery thought that they would have more influence over the Southern states by having them as a part of the union and therefore be able to better influence them over the coming years to give up the institution of slavery.

Likewise, when it came to writing the Constitution our founders opted to form the union first and deal with the slavery issue later. That’s why the Constitution included Article 1, Section 9 granting to the Congress the power to regulate or to ban slavery as of January 1, 1808. That segment reads:

“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.”

Why were the southern states so adamant about slavery? You might be surprised to learn that Georgia was the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery. Georgia soon found out, however, that it could not compete agriculturally with the other southern colonies without slaves -- so the prohibition was rescinded. The southern states simply felt they could not compete economically without slavery; certainly not for many years. I’m not presenting that as an excuse – just as a reason.

Here’s something else you need to know about slavery. The institution of slavery was born in Africa (and pretty much only exists in Africa today. Ironic, isn’t it?) Slaves were the spoils of African tribal conflict and warfare. In the 15th century slavery was virtually wiped out in Europe by the emergence of a Christian society. It was the Portugese who, in the mid 1940s, rediscovered slavery, so to speak, in their explorations along the western coast of Africa. Slavery (generally in support of the sugar industry) then started to make its way across the Atlantic and into the Caribbean. From the islands of the Caribbean slavery was then introduced into the southern colonies.

Look; I’m getting a bit carried away with my own narrative here. Let’s cut to the chase: The simple truth is that if our founding fathers made up their mind in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, or in 1787 with our Constitution, that slavery was going to be illegal in the United States, and that all people held in slavery were going to be freed at that point -- the southern colonies or states would have simply said “no way in hell” and gone their own way. Without the southern colonies in the Revolutionary War, independence would not have been achieved and we would be throwing flowers and Prince William and Princess Kate later this week when they’re though with Canada. This was truly one of those “we must all hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately” situations. The more pragmatic move was to forge ahead with the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain and the creation of a new nation; with a stated determination to address and correct the slavery issue later.

To say that the Founding Fathers were proponents for slavery completely ignores their incredible achievements on the issue. During their lifetimes, the Founding Fathers were able to accomplish many things in accordance with their anti-slavery beliefs.

They limited and eventually outlawed the importation of slaves.

They outlawed slavery in the majority of the states within their lifetime.

They outlawed the expansion of slavery into areas where it currently did not exist.

They passed or influenced legislatures to pass laws making slavery more humane.

Many individual slave owners, largely through the efforts of the founders, voluntarily freed their slaves.

Like many of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson pushed for the abolition of slavery. In his home state of Virginia, Jefferson proposed the abolition of slavery in 1778 and 1796. Along with Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Wilson and countless others were opposed to the institution of slavery and organized to end the practice. None were more outspoken than Benjamin Franklin, who founded the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1789. Others like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay signed a petition to the New York State legislature in 1786 to end the slave trade. This widely circulated petition was the foundation for the establishment of the “New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves and Protecting Such of Them as Have been or may be liberated.'' Also, Hamilton and Washington, along with General Nathaniel Greene made a concerted effort to recruit blacks into the Continental Army. They thought this would be a key step in bringing about emancipation. Alexander Hamilton wrote a letter to John Jay (President of the Congress at the time) about recruiting blacks from South Carolina to serve in the Continental Army:

“An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their swords. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and, I believe, will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of humanity, and true policy, equally interest me in favor of this unfortunate class of men....”

On the eve of the creation of our Constitution, John Jay himself wrote about the hypocrisy of American ideals if we were not to abolish the institution of slavery:

“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

Before we move on --- a word about the Three-fifth’s compromise. This is the section of our Constitution that many race whores like to use to illustrate the racist leanings of our founding fathers. How many times have you heard that our Constitution says that blacks are only three-fifths human. Well --- whoever told you that is an idiot (at best) or a malicious liar (at worst). It’s not there. The Constitution says no such thing. Just click here to read my notes on “Race Baiting and the Constitution.” Welcome to clarity of thought.

History is clear. Our founders wrote on many occasions about their desire to end the institution of slavery and history demonstrates their efforts to do so. You can read some more of those quotes here, but the point is that liberals would like you to believe that our Constitution was founded by a bunch of pro-slavery racists because this is a way of diminishing the value of our Constitution. Remember that the Constitution is just a roadblock for many Democrats who seek to increase their power over you.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 3,943 • Replies: 76
No top replies

 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 11:24 am
At the time of the U.S. constitution being written, wasn't there slavery in the British colonies? Does that mean the British laws that harken back to the 18th century should be demonized, as written by men that condoned slavery in the British colonies?

While slavery is a moral blemish on the history of the U.S., is it ethical to extrapolate its immorality to include the ability of the founding fathers to write a constitution? The two are mutually exclusive, as seen by how today's American Black citizens value their rights under the constitution, in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 11:28 am
The founding fathers were against slavery in principle. Their real problem was that they were afraid of alienating the southern states. The founding fathers were flawed individuals like everyone else.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 11:35 am
Additionally, Bachmann is one stupid, and ignorant bitch.
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 11:48 am
@Setanta,
When making a pejorative comment without an explanation, it just comes off as the keening of someone that cannot express themselves, in my opinion. Sort of like cursing, but without the curse words.

Also, with you, where you are presently, how do you believe that your posts have credibility regarding U.S. topics, since you likely do not have a vested interest to the same degree as someone CONUS? Have you become the prototype of an "international poster"? The word "international" could have negative connotations in the minds of some?
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:45 pm
@Setanta,
Way smarter than Obama though...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 09:03 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Way smarter than Obama though...
Who died and left you the judge of intelligence???

Consider this whatever you post... I trash the constitution at every opportunity, but not because I dislike the minimal protection it gives to human rights. but judged by its own standards, what is spelled out as the aim of those who wrote it, it is a failure and the most spectacular failure the world has ever known... Those who hate it most have found their way around it time and again... The Supreme Court makes law as suits their class... They do not want it gone or to start on another constitution that will work... They want it there as an impediment to justice, and they have it... The liberals, or as you say it, the left only wants goverment to work... The ruling class hates government of every sort because without it they are kings... Without the protection offered by the constitution the working class is to a person a slave... Yet; the protections of the constitution for individuals are illusion...
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 11:14 pm
@Foofie,
What in the hell are you trying to say. You sound like waterman !!!
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 05:54 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

What in the hell are you trying to say. You sound like waterman !!!
Now; that hurts... Okay... The constitution is a piece of **** that needs to be replaced with a constitution that in another few years will be a piece of **** too... Changing forms is the history of all human progress...
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:03 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

What in the hell are you trying to say. You sound like waterman !!!
The constitution is a piece of **** that needs to be replaced with a constitution that in another few years will be a piece of **** too...


Bullshit!

Who died and left you the judge of intelligence???
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:15 am
@H2O MAN,
I see that you don't dispute that Bachmann is a stupid and ignorant bitch. Maybe there is hope for you after all . . .











. . . although i doubt it . . .
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:39 am
@Setanta,
I don't share your feelings for Bachmann - I dispute them.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:44 am
Too late . . . you stepped on your dick (yet again) and there's no way out of it . . .
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:55 am
I really would regret if I couldn't read Waterman's Adventures in Wonderland here ... or is it part of new chapters of A Delusion of Satan: The Full Story of the Salem Witch Trials?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 09:51 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I see that you don't dispute that Bachmann is a stupid and ignorant bitch. Maybe there is hope for you after all . . .

. . . although i doubt it . . .


Regarding the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, do you have a dog in this hunt (aka, a vote)?

I ask this since it would lessen my cognitive dissonance regarding how vested you are in the outcome of U.S. elections.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:08 am
@Foofie,
Yeah, as though i ever gave a **** what you want to know.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:13 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Yeah, as though i ever gave a **** what you want to know.


Agreed. In my opinion, you would lose face if you did.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:14 am
@Foofie,
Is anyone supposed to care?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:22 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Is anyone supposed to care?


A non-sequitor.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:46 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido wrote:

RABEL222 wrote:

What in the hell are you trying to say. You sound like waterman !!!
The constitution is a piece of **** that needs to be replaced with a constitution that in another few years will be a piece of **** too...


Bullshit!

Who died and left you the judge of intelligence???
In the last presidential election the states of the old South went republican... Do you get it??? We are still disputing over whether black people should be held in perpetual servitude or whether they will really have the sort of equal rights that might get them elected president on the content of their character...I am not saying Mr. Obama was the best that America has to offer, and in fact, I hope and pray that is not the case; but that is the best of the choice given to us by our party dominated system... Now; What does the constitution say about parties and the place they should hold in our political system??? Why is it that to touch the government, one must first move the parties when intransigence and inertia were already built into the government from the start??? Look at the thing, this megalithic government teetering and tottering on the edge of bankruptcy while the rich refuse to pay taxes on their massive wealth... Does the government not exist to defend wealth as much to ensure poverty??? That is what it does though that is not ever or anywhere stated as the goal of the constitution... And look at the way we dispute, often along the same sectional lines that once divided this people and baptized this people in the blood of their children... Would that war have been possible and would it have been necessary and would all of our mutual enmity be necessary now if the goal of a more perfect union had been ever made possible by the constitution written to achieve that end???

You figure this out, Waterman... Honor is the essential element of a happy life for a person as it is for the life of a nation... Justice is an essential element of honor, the williness to give as we get fairly to demand and deliver what all deserve and need... This is a land without honor or justice, and of consequence it knows little happiness and much pain, and that pain which has been chronic is growing and spreading and will kill us if we cannot deliver ourselves from the failed constitution and raise ourselves to a new form of mutual existence... I do not think we will all get there...

I fear the bad and worthless people of this land will slaughter the good until the good must rise up and quench the life the useless in a sea of blood... I hope you make it... I hope you figure out which side you are on and stand with the good... The constitution we now suffer did not fail on the quality of its goals which are all good and worthy... It failed because we were all working for them, and them was those who never considered the goals of the constitution but what could serve their own purposes... We will not reach a higher plane of life and of nation without throwing such people overboard... I hope that ain't you, but I fear you will prove worthless to any good cause and that your end is fore ordained... It is written... Do not hold the cup of trembling, but heed the writing on the wall...
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Leftist attack on the US Constitution
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 03:49:36