Being "Nonjudgmental" Means That There Is No Evil

[ding]

Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.

“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"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. "

So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

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.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

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

 

[alang1216]

And yet they wrote into the Constitution the earliest date that the importation of slaves could be abolished, abolished the importation of slaves at the earliest possible date allowed by the Constitution and wrote laws preventing the expansion of slavery in new territories.

This is news to me. What I found was:

The Framers debated over the extent to which slavery would be included, permitted, or prohibited in the Constitution. In the end, they created a document of compromise that represented the interests of the nation as they knew it and predicted it to be in the future. Explaining the Framers’ and the Constitution’s understanding of slavery requires a careful look at the three clauses which deal with the issue. An analysis of the three-fifths compromise, the slave trade clause, and the fugitive-slave law all point to the Framers’ intentions in the creation of the Constitution and prove that it neither authorized nor prohibited slavery.​

 

[ding]

And yet they wrote into the Constitution the earliest date that the importation of slaves could be abolished, abolished the importation of slaves at the earliest possible date allowed by the Constitution and wrote laws preventing the expansion of slavery in new territories.

This is news to me. What I found was:

The Framers debated over the extent to which slavery would be included, permitted, or prohibited in the Constitution. In the end, they created a document of compromise that represented the interests of the nation as they knew it and predicted it to be in the future. Explaining the Framers’ and the Constitution’s understanding of slavery requires a careful look at the three clauses which deal with the issue. An analysis of the three-fifths compromise, the slave trade clause, and the fugitive-slave law all point to the Framers’ intentions in the creation of the Constitution and prove that it neither authorized nor prohibited slavery.​

Your misunderstanding stems from the fact that they had to form a union with slave states. And because the founding fathers wishes were subverted by the Democratic Party. The 3/5th clause was an anti-slavery clause, not a pro slavery clause. They intentionally never used the term slavery in the document because they did intend for it to perish.


By the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia

The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia





Frederick Douglas 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

 

[expat_panama]

...religion is no more (or less) guilty of abuses than any other 'ism'.

My take is that an 'ism' doesn't kill anyone, it's people that kill people. The good news is that the vast majority of people are good, and that includes those of us who're members of ism's.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
recorded history speaks for itself, there has never been a time for any society that has not been invested by war and persecution of one subject matter or another - to say the written scriptures of the desert religions among others have failed is an understatement if not in fact the leading cause for many of the uninterrupted series of conflicts.

 

[alang1216]

...religion is no more (or less) guilty of abuses than any other 'ism'.

My take is that an 'ism' doesn't kill anyone, it's people that kill people. The good news is that the vast majority of people are good, and that includes those of us who're members of ism's.

The vast majority of people are good but something like Nazism can draw people into a mob mentality and get them to do things they otherwise would not do. If you think your 'ism' is good then anything you do to advance that 'ism' must also be good. And that could include the killing of enemies.

 

[expat_panama]

....people are good but something like Nazism can draw people into a mob...

Yeah, I was thinking that too, that not all ism's are ok.

Remember if we want a good example of a bad example the fascists weren't nearly as bad as the communists. That tally by popten.net put Hitler's kill score at a "mere trifling" 17 million in contrast to that of just Mao Zedong, Stalin, and Pol Pot soaring to 90 million.

The good news is that most of us are neither communists nor fascists, even tho it sure seems we keep hearing from a lot of Marxist party line on these threads.

 

[alang1216]

....people are good but something like Nazism can draw people into a mob...

Yeah, I was thinking that too, that not all ism's are ok.

Remember if we want a good example of a bad example the fascists weren't nearly as bad as the communists. That tally by popten.net put Hitler's kill score at a "mere trifling" 17 million in contrast to that of just Mao Zedong, Stalin, and Pol Pot soaring to 90 million.

The good news is that most of us are neither communists nor fascists, even tho it sure seems we keep hearing from a lot of Marxist party line on these threads.

In Nazism it was ultra-nationalism, racism, and antisemitism coupled with a cultist, authoritarian leader that led to genocide. In Communism it was a arrogant, utopian ideology, an end-justifies-means mentality, extreme paranoia (Stalin), coupled with a cultist, authoritarian leader that led to genocide.

My take away? Stay away from cultist, authoritarian leaders. Listen to plans and policies and not promises and fears.

 

[ding]

....people are good but something like Nazism can draw people into a mob...

Yeah, I was thinking that too, that not all ism's are ok.

Remember if we want a good example of a bad example the fascists weren't nearly as bad as the communists. That tally by popten.net put Hitler's kill score at a "mere trifling" 17 million in contrast to that of just Mao Zedong, Stalin, and Pol Pot soaring to 90 million.

The good news is that most of us are neither communists nor fascists, even tho it sure seems we keep hearing from a lot of Marxist party line on these threads.

In Nazism it was ultra-nationalism, racism, and antisemitism coupled with a cultist, authoritarian leader that led to genocide. In Communism it was a arrogant, utopian ideology, an end-justifies-means mentality, extreme paranoia (Stalin), coupled with a cultist, authoritarian leader that led to genocide.

My take away? Stay away from cultist, authoritarian leaders. Listen to plans and policies and not promises and fears.

My take is to stay away from militant atheists.

 

[alang1216]

My take is to stay away from militant atheists.

You'd do well to stay away from militant theists too.

 

[ding]

My take is to stay away from militant atheists.

You'd do well to stay away from militant theists too.

I agree. They both try to subordinate the dominant religion of the land and they both are socialists.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
no, the scriptures of one, the 4th century christian religion is what is used to illicitly subordinate the unsuspecting through fictitious and devious persuasions through their forgeries against the truths being sought as proven throughout history. without remorse or consciousness for the crimes they have committed.