America Was Built on Natural Law

[JakeStarkey]

He was a witness, moron.

Daniel Webster was not a Founder.

 

[ding]

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

They didn't abolish the slave trade- they prohibited the importation of new slaves- in 1808. After writing a Constitution which allowed the importation of slaves for 20 years.

IF the Founders were against slavery- why did they allow slavery in the United States?

If they were again slavery- why did they own slaves themselves?

Because they were not able to form a better union any other way, but they did take actions to end slavery.

Wait- if they were the founders- why could they not 'form a better union any other way'?

If all of the founders were Natural Law believing, anti-slavery advocates- then they could have written the Constitution exactly that way.

If they believed in Natural Law- and Natural Law said that slavery was wrong- why did they own slaves- in the case of Thomas Jefferson- for his entire life?

Because sometimes good men do bad things. That doesn't change the standard. It wasn't just the founders who believed this. It was all people except godless atheists like yourself.

 

[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?

No, dingle berry, you did not.

Why don't you explain how I didn't, ok?

 

[Syriusly]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

You could not ask for a better witness than the Vice President of the Confederacy.
Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861
y

How is Alexander Stephens a witness to the signing of the Constitution? He was born 30 years after the signing of the Constitution?

 

[ding]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

You could not ask for a better witness than the Vice President of the Confederacy.
Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861
y

How is Alexander Stephens a witness to the signing of the Constitution? He was born 30 years after the signing of the Constitution?

First of all you are still ignoring all of the evidence. They 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. You are losing badly.

 

[Syriusly]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

On page 271 of Daniel Webster's speech he states that there were records in existence that support this opinion and that it was a matter of public record. Given that both of these men were much closer to the historical events then you are ."

You said you had provided 'testimony'- and so far you have provided testimony from a man who was born 30 years after the signing of the signing of the Constitution and Daniel Webster- who was 6 years old when the Constitution was signed.

 

[Syriusly]

Ding sure is willing to attack me for 'global warming' but sure isn't willing to respond to actual challenges to his theories.

Why did women have to wait 150 years to get the vote if Natural Law was understood by the founders?

I have no idea what you are talking about, I am pointing out the incongruity and hypocrisy of your argument. Don't take it personal. Those are your beliefs. Don't be ashamed of your beliefs. Be proud of them. Beliefs not worth owning are beliefs not worth having.

Ding sure is willing to attack me for 'global warming' but sure isn't willing to respond to actual challenges to his theories.

Why did women have to wait 150 years to get the vote if Natural Law was understood by the founders?

 

[ding]

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. " Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected." Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850, (In the Senate), Page 273

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Frederick Douglas - a former slave - believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - 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.

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

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gots an idea, bro!

Define "Natural Law" and "Divine Law' with definitions accepted by a reasonable man standard.

Next show specific examples where Thomas or George of Jumping Jimmy say, "I believe in Divine Law" and "I believe in an evangelical Jesus."

We are waiting.

Read the OP. It's there, brother.

You failed the OP is the point. We are waiting for you to make your case. You have not.

See it however you want, brother. You are a subversive who hates America and our heritage. I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way.

Only to the voices in your head, brother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

They didn't abolish the slave trade- they prohibited the importation of new slaves- in 1808. After writing a Constitution which allowed the importation of slaves for 20 years.

IF the Founders were against slavery- why did they allow slavery in the United States?

If they were again slavery- why did they own slaves themselves?

Because they were not able to form a better union any other way, but they did take actions to end slavery.

Wait- if they were the founders- why could they not 'form a better union any other way'?

If all of the founders were Natural Law believing, anti-slavery advocates- then they could have written the Constitution exactly that way.

If they believed in Natural Law- and Natural Law said that slavery was wrong- why did they own slaves- in the case of Thomas Jefferson- for his entire life?

Because sometimes good men do bad things. That doesn't change the standard. It wasn't just the founders who believed this. It was all people except godless atheists like yourself.

You may be crazy. Jefferson was a slave master, he had sex with slave women, he had slave children, and so forth.

You have to stay with the facts, brother.

 

[Syriusly]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished..

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution doesn't mention slavery. If this was established the date which slave imports could be stopped- then it is also a Constitutional legal acknowledgement of the legality of slavery.

And of course this didn't abolish the slave trade- why do you keep making that claim? Thousands of slaves a year, and millions of dollars were made from slaves for another 50 years.

 

[ding]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

On page 271 of Daniel Webster's speech he states that there were records in existence that support this opinion and that it was a matter of public record. Given that both of these men were much closer to the historical events then you are ."

You said you had provided 'testimony'- and so far you have provided testimony from a man who was born 30 years after the signing of the signing of the Constitution and Daniel Webster- who was 6 years old when the Constitution was signed.

First of all you are still ignoring all of the evidence. They 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.

Do you have any evidence?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

You could not ask for a better witness than the Vice President of the Confederacy.
Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861
y

How is Alexander Stephens a witness to the signing of the Constitution? He was born 30 years after the signing of the Constitution?

Stephens was not a Founder, and he was a secessionists, who said that Civil War was about slavery first and foremost.

 

[ding]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You have provided no 'testimony' that the 'founders'(again as undefined a term as Natural Law)were against slavery. Or that they thought it was against the laws of nature.

You have provided quotes by two men- neither of whom were alive when the Constitution was written

You could not ask for a better witness than the Vice President of the Confederacy.
Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861
y

How is Alexander Stephens a witness to the signing of the Constitution? He was born 30 years after the signing of the Constitution?

Stephens was not a Founder, and he was a secessionists, who said that Civil War was about slavery first and foremost.

That's why he was the perfect witness. He disagreed with the beliefs of the founders. He had no reason to lie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

“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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished..

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution doesn't mention slavery. If this was established the date which slave imports could be stopped- then it is also a Constitutional legal acknowledgement of the legality of slavery.

And of course this didn't abolish the slave trade- why do you keep making that claim? Thousands of slaves a year, and millions of dollars were made from slaves for another 50 years.

First of all you are still ignoring all of the evidence. They 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.

And Stephens, whom you called a Founder, was a defender of slavery. You are crazy, if you believe this nonsense.

Are you trying to write a paper for a Grace College course?

Or, oh my heavens, are you an instructor at the God forsaken institution?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

 

[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.

 

[ding]

Nor did the 'Founders' take any action to end slavery. The first action you identify was a law to prevent the importation of slaves- 20 years after the signing of the Constitution- did any of the 'founders' work to pass that bill? You don't even try to establish that they did. Certainly not Jefferson or Adams- both were retired and ill, and would die shortly after the law was passed.

Of course they did. They wrote ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution which established the date in which the slave trade could be abolished..

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution doesn't mention slavery. If this was established the date which slave imports could be stopped- then it is also a Constitutional legal acknowledgement of the legality of slavery.

And of course this didn't abolish the slave trade- why do you keep making that claim? Thousands of slaves a year, and millions of dollars were made from slaves for another 50 years.

First of all you are still ignoring all of the evidence. They 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.

And Stephens, whom you called a Founder, was a defender of slavery. You are crazy, if you believe this nonsense.

Are you trying to write a paper for a Grace College course?

Or, oh my heavens, are you an instructor at the God forsaken institution?

No. That's not what I wrote Jake. It's public record. 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]

“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, 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.

You are spewing. Stephens opposed your OP.