[Scartol]

Background: In this thread, DanDaMan (who I am shunning about as effectively as Dwight Shrute shuns Andy Barnard in The Office) posted this video:

[youtube]uZfRaWAtBVg[/youtube]

I replied with this:

That one literally made me LOL, for the same reason Wolfman mentioned. Where are all their black slaves during those late-night conversation sessions? And do you really think they forged their own weapons? ROFL!

He responded with this:

Your ignorance of the time is showing. You forget that America was a British colony and subject to their rule.
I question your competence to post on a political forum when you think the wave of a wand changes things overnight.

Now. I didn't want to pollute that thread (which, from what I can tell, is supposed to contain more satire than rambling arguments about the satire), so I moved the discussion here. I hope no one minds.

Okay.

So, Dan, your snide insinuations about my "competence to post on a political forum" (I'm actually giggling as I copy and paste that -- I never knew there were such high standards for such things.. MAN I've been hanging out on the wrong forums. LOLZ) notwithstanding, I want to try and understand the gist of your argument.

Are you claiming that the founding fathers really wanted to abolish slavery right away, but they were constrained by the British crown and therefore couldn't just "wave [...] a wand" and make it happen? I'm trying to get a handle on where you're coming from before I try to respond. Please give us your thoughts on why slavery existed in the US colonies at the time this video depicts. (And then maybe your thoughts about why the video leaves out such details, which you never really addressed.)

[Wolfman]

DDM is a computer program designed to spread anger and chaos throughout our glorious Pofo. I'm thinking of writing a fanfiction based around his origin story.

[DanDaMan]

Are you claiming that the founding fathers really wanted to abolish slavery right away, but they were constrained by the British crown and therefore couldn't just "wave [...] a wand" and make it happen?

Yes.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'm trying to get a handle on where you're coming from before I try to respond. Please give us your thoughts on why slavery existed in the US colonies at the time this video depicts. (And then maybe your thoughts about why the video leaves out such details, which you never really addressed.)

Slavery existed because it was "normal" for the time.

[Rei Murasame]

So why did we make a move toward abolishing slavery before you did?

[DanDaMan]

So why did we make a move toward abolishing slavery before you did?

Started by whom?

[Wolfman]

Rei, because the US Founding Fathers were only marginally against slavery, and were largely more in favor of it then against. Because of this, they wrote it into the Constitution. Because it was written into the Constitution the only way to outlaw slavery would have been by a Constitutional Amendment, which would have required more Anti-Slave States then existed. This allowed the fight to draw out longer then it would have otherwise. In essence, the pro-slavery sentiments of the Founding Fathers allowed the whole issue to continue.

[DanDaMan]

Rei, because the US Founding Fathers were only marginally against slavery, and were largely more in favor of it then against. Because of this, they wrote it into the Constitution.

That makes no sense. Why would they write it in if they were only marginally against it?

Because it was written into the Constitution the only way to outlaw slavery would have been by a Constitutional Amendment, which would have required more Anti-Slave States then existed. This allowed the fight to draw out longer then it would have otherwise. In essence, the pro-slavery sentiments of the Founding Fathers allowed the whole issue to continue.

The founding fathers knew some states would secede if abolition was forced upon them and they would never get to end slavery in the South.

Jeez.. you're on a politics forum... dont you know how politicians work by now? They are always sneaky and sly and take your rights away slowly!
And by taking rights slowly I mean the slave owners rights to own slaves.

[Wolfman]

That makes no sense. Why would they write it in if they were only marginally against it?

If someone is marginally against something, then they are mostly for it. Think for one... oh right, never mind.

[DanDaMan]

Rei, because the US Founding Fathers were only marginally against slavery, and were largely more in favor of it then against. Because of this, they wrote it into the Constitution.

Wrote WHAT exactly? Give us quotes?

[Wolfman]

Wow, you cannot be serious.

[DanDaMan]

If you cannot, I will understand.

[Wolfman]

Did you seriously not realized that Slavery was expressly legalized under the Constitution?

[DanDaMan]

Did you seriously not realized that Slavery was expressly legalized under the Constitution?

Educate me where and I'll educate you as to the why.

[Ombrageux]

The part where is says slavery isn't illegal and, specifically, a slave is 3/5ths for voting purposes? Really, DDM, stop ruining the internet.

[DanDaMan]

The part where is says slavery isn't illegal and, specifically, a slave is 3/5ths for voting purposes? Really, DDM, stop ruining the internet.

But why not illegal and why 3/5ths?

The answer of course is that the Southern Founders still wanted slavery. And total abolition meant the South would secede from America and then the Northern states would have no political power whatsoever to end slavery.
That too hard to understand?

As for 3/5ths a person... do you think the South should be awarded full representation for a slave? No. Of course not. 3/5ths was a political punishment that forced slaves not to be counted as one. Also know that any free black man in the South was counted as 1.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[Wolfman]

The answer of course is that the Southern Founders still wanted slavery. And total abolition meant the South would secede from America and then the Northern states would have no political power whatsoever to end slavery.

Northern States had slavery too. Forget about that little detail?

3/5ths was a political punishment that forced slaves not to be counted as one.

Actually, it was a compromise because the North wanted slaves not counted at all and treated as property, and the South wanted to use them to inflate their own representation in Congress, even though they also considered slaves property.

[DanDaMan]

Northern States had slavery too. Forget about that little detail?

Old habits are hard to quit. You have to keep in mind there were even friends of the King in the northern states that fought Washington. The whole process even tore apart families. It was messy, to say the least.

Quote:
3/5ths was a political punishment that forced slaves not to be counted as one.

Actually, it was a compromise because the North wanted slaves not counted at all and treated as property,

True. But you can't count property for representation. So the North was still forcing the South to abolish for full representation.

[Wolfman]

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

[Smilin' Dave]

The answer of course is that the Southern Founders still wanted slavery. And total abolition meant the South would secede from America and then the Northern states would have no political power whatsoever to end slavery.

Old habits are hard to quit. You have to keep in mind there were even friends of the King in the northern states that fought Washington. The whole process even tore apart families. It was messy, to say the least.

These seem to be excuses rather than justifications. As someone who portrays themself as something of a crusader of principles, I don't understand how you can accept these half measures. Perhaps a little bit of 'statism' or 'socialism' is okay if people are used it it? Or it makes things a bit easier for people trying to run a country?

Worse, Rei's point about Britain's early abolition record actually undermines both excuses. Britain also had to contend with significant political interests on the 'frontier' of their empire who wanted to maintain slavery, Britain had as much of a history of slave holding. Yet it did so, and it didn't cause succession. Your assertion of the British as arch-slave masters also doesn't seem to be supported by the record, in the American Revolution the majority of African-Americans served the British, rather than the Americans. The process seems to have been repeated in 1812. It would seem the slaves generally preferred the British to their American masters.

[pugsville]

Yes the English abolished slavery, and the Royal Navy did much to curtail the slave trade, but a lot of manufacturing in England was pretty dependent of southern cotton. While there was a principled anti -slavery movement, England was able to abolish slavery while still recieving the benefits in slave grown cotton, as the colonies were now independent. There abolution might have faced more opposition if it had more concrete effect on this manufacturing.