View single post by ebg
 Posted: Tue Apr 17th, 2012 03:11 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
ebg
Member
 

Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 22
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote:
ebg, perhaps we misunderstand each other. I would be the last person to suggest that the founding fathers were gods and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. I was under the impression that you wanted to know why the vast majority of mid-nineteenth century Americans accepted the constitutionality of slavery. Perhaps I was incorrect in understanding your question? Can you clarify what you mean by "nor are we dictated to substitute the idealism of the constitution for the teaching of our morality..." I really have no idea what you mean. Since you asked about Dred Scott, three justices disagreed, and they dissented either on Taney's interpretation of Article IV, Section III or his insistence that black men could NEVER enter the body politic. They did not question the legality of slavery where it already existed. On abolitionists, there were two wings of the movement: one did attempt to work with in the system, as you put it. These formed the Liberty party and later became a constituent group within the larger Republican party. The other wing of the abolitionists insisted that they could not work within the system because the Constitution itself was the problem. As too your last point, perhaps you are confusing the slave trade with slavery itself? By 1800, slavery could exist without influxes of slaves from outside the United States. Hope that clarifies things for you.
Cheers!

Mark


1.) If you allow pro-slavery advocates, like Chief Justice Taney, the broad latitude of judicial interpretation of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution, then you must also allow abolitionist the same broad latitude of judicial interpretation of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution.

If Chief Justice Taney opinion for the Dred Scott Case was that Art I, Sec IX "shows that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers"; then, that's a broad interpretation of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution.

Abolitionist can argue if Art I, Sec IX "shows that slavery was accepted as legal by the framers", then 1808 was the "statue of limitation" for that legality of slavery as to "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution.

However, is there one set of rules for the pro-slavery advocates, whereby they can interprete the constitution on a broad sense of "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution...

And another set of rules for abolitionist, wherby they can interprete only as to the exact language of the law, and NOT to "what the founding fathers were thinking to show" when they wrote the Constitution?


There is no "confussion" as to the interpretation of Art 1, sec IX; so that, you can't restrict the abolitionist to an interpretation of "slave trade issue only",THEN ALLOW pro-slavery advocates to interprete upon "slavery's legality as to what the founding fathers were thinking to show."

2.)To say the vast majority of people in the mid 1800 accepted slavery is somewhat misleading.

Uncle Tom's Cabin was a best seller and influenced thousands against slavery. Apathy to the situation does not mean acceptance.

Certainly, the term "Bloody Kansas" has it's roots in the issue of slavery.

3.) As for "nor are we dictated to substitute the idealism of the constitution for the teaching of our morality...": I was contradicting the previous example you gave of the clergy abolitionist tearing up a copy of the constitution. I interprete your example, or "what you were thinking to show" as the irrational action of a zealost radical clergyman unable to cope with the inexplectable logic of the constitutionality of slavery. I was counteracting your example by emphasizing that any political document is fallable, and are not in themselfs the source of moral authority.

Last edited on Tue Apr 17th, 2012 12:03 pm by ebg

 Close Window