Bill Keller needs to get out more

I’ll appoint them. Nuff said. Fool.

@Greg G

I see you like I see any play toy, just an amusement, you’re certainly no challenge.

But, then what looney lefty is?

“But I would have viewed the decision [the Supreme Court's opining in Dred Scott that people could be legally owned as property] as legal while that process was underway.”

Ha! Talk about crack pot!

I oppose any infringement on Constitutional restrictions and rights whether it’s by politically-motivated Justices opining that people are property or cowardly Congress critters abdicating their responsibility to declare war to the President, etc. What part of the policy reason of “all men are created equal” from the Declaration that underlies the Constitution that you do not (as slave owners disingenuously argued that they did not) understand?

Greg G, thanks for proving that you are merely an advocate for corrupt politicians and their political cronies. Now, in defense of the statist slave owners of the early 1800s, you make their argument. I know that, as a big-government advocate, you feel right at home with slave owners and their statist descendants.

The section that you referred to was part of the compromise that the founders had to make with statists such as yourself back then. It has been amended out of the Constiution.

Understanding any law requires understanding it’s purpose. The abolitionists argued the policy reasons for the Constitution as clearly stated in the Declaration. The slave owners cited the section that you cited, the Bible, and world history as well as claimed that the Declaration did not matter. It’s funny how you stastists continue to make the same arguments.

Under your silly view of legal interpretation, you would stop and stay in one place forever when you see a Stop Sign. But, the purpose of the law is merely to get you to stop temporarily, check both ways for other traffic, and proceed when the way is clear. Thus, the purpose of the law is of primary importance.

Greg G, like all statists, you twist the clear meaning of words and ideas. But, in applying your twisted meanings, we can all see how ridiculous your view is. And, that’s true in law as well as in economics, history, philosophy, or anything else for that matter.

Why be so disingenuous? And, why be a useful idiot to corrupt politicians and their political cronies?

Once again, Greg G, you prove that you are the dumbest guy in any room that you are in.

A thorough reading of history leaves no doubt that the founding fathers were adamantly opposed to Slavery, and determined to end it.  Being strenuously opposed to slavery is one thing. That part is easy. But, developing a working plan to end slavery is another, harder thing.

The founding fathers that you libtards 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 A. J. Ohline 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 the nation while leaving the slavery battle for another day. 

Even before the Declaration of Independence the 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 the 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.”

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. 

The institution of slavery was born in Africa (and pretty much only exists in Africa today.)  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 1540s, 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.

The simple truth is that if the 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.  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 the Constitution, John Jay himself wrote about the hypocrisy of American ideals if they 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.”

The founders wrote on many occasions about their desire to end the institution of slavery and history demonstrates their efforts to do so.  I recommend that you read some history rather than libtard propaganda.

Greg G, based on the historical record, you lose…again.

Greg G, you idiot. You obviously did nor carefully read the extensive history of the founders that I provided to educate you. You really should read it.

Over half of the founders like Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, etc did not own slaves. They wanted to abolish slavery, but lacked the power to do so immediately. So they wrote the policy reasons in the Declaration and the means in the Constitution. They just lacked the power to enforce it.

The Supreme Court had the power to protect slavery and did so in the Dred Scott decision. But, it was not legal. Legal is what the words of the Constitution mean, not what a temporary majority of politically-motivated Justices say it is.

Greg G, my firm has filed many appeals and won, which overturned prior courts’ opinion as to the law. Congress has written laws that specifically overturned Supreme Court opinions on prior laws. And, Presidents have refused to enforce Supreme Court’s rulings. Your childess worldview again proves that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Perhaps you should donate yours to science. I’m sure they would love to have a specimen of an unused brain.