Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you point out where in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers our Founders deemed individuals as property? I have read them and I don’t see where that is factual.
Once again, be it elementary biology or US history, your time would be better off attending classes in both
at your local community college or an adult learning center rather than wasting time posting here.
The question you should be asking is why the notion of people as property was not directly addressed in
these documents. You ignore it.
Of course, the Dred Scott ruling subesequently confirmed people as property under the constitution; at least until a civil war and several ammendments to the constitution years later overturned the ruling.
BTW, individuals as property was addressed in at least one of the Federalist Papers, but you must have missed class that day or simply not understood what you read.
Once again, be it elementary biology or US history, your time would be better off attending classes in both
at your local community college or an adult learning center rather than wasting time posting here.
The question you should be asking is why the notion of people as property was not directly addressed in
these documents. You ignore it.
Of course, the Dred Scott ruling subesequently confirmed people as property under the constitution; at least until a civil war and several ammendments to the constitution years later overturned the ruling.
BTW, individuals as property was addressed in at least one of the Federalist Papers, but you must have missed class that day or simply not understood what you read.
Coming from the poster who used this as an analogy in defense of wearing a cloth mask to prevent the spread of a deadly virus.
“Lastly, look at it from this context, if you are in the ocean staring at the eyeball of a Tiger (a rather unpleasant experience), would you rather have a shark repellant, even if it is not very effective, as opposed to no repellant at all?”
You have never read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any of the Federalist Papers have you? You clearly never read any of Jefferson’s letters as well? No where are any individuals declared as property. No where in the Constitution does it promote slavery.
Dred Scott was an awful ruling. Because a activist lawyer in a black robe makes a radical ruling has zero burden on the Constitution. Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt's internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Please explain how the Constitution condones such rulings?
You do realize Federalist 54 is based on the 3/5th clause? Go back to 8th grade social studies. At least it will be a better education than what you would receive in any of our prestige university indoctrination mills. Brainwashed. Yeah, America sucks, our Founding sucks, 1619 Project is truth.
Coming from the poster who used this as an analogy in defense of wearing a cloth mask to prevent the spread of a deadly virus.
“Lastly, look at it from this context, if you are in the ocean staring at the eyeball of a Tiger (a rather unpleasant experience), would you rather have a shark repellant, even if it is not very effective, as opposed to no repellant at all?”
You have never read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any of the Federalist Papers have you? You clearly never read any of Jefferson’s letters as well? No where are any individuals declared as property. No where in the Constitution does it promote slavery.
Dred Scott was an awful ruling. Because a activist lawyer in a black robe makes a radical ruling has zero burden on the Constitution. Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt's internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Please explain how the Constitution condones such rulings?
You do realize Federalist 54 is based on the 3/5th clause? Go back to 8th grade social studies. At least it will be a better education than what you would receive in any of our prestige university indoctrination mills. Brainwashed. Yeah, America sucks, our Founding sucks, 1619 Project is truth.
Once again, in order to evade having to answer a question, you ignore the question and repeat what you
stated, ad nauseum.
Funny you mention 54. You probably spent an hour or more looking it up on the internet in order to formulate a reply, but the contents of your reply indicate you don't understand what you read.
Ignorance can be fixed. Go fix yours.
Last edited by Rain Monkey; 08-11-2021 at 09:22 PM..
... If you want to trust that political hack, by all means go with your bad self...
You were the one misinterpreting what he said. Political hack? Wrong again. You obviously have no respect for the man. As a result, I have none for you. On to my ignore list you go. Good riddance.
Once again, in order to evade having to answer a question, you ignore the question and repeat what you
stated, ad nauseum.
Funny you mention 54. You probably spent an hour or more looking it up on the internet in order to formulate a reply, but the contents of your reply indicate you don't understand what you read.
Ignorance can be fixed. Go fix yours.
So you are not able to answer where in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or in the Federalist Papers where slavery is promoted? Instead, you spin it on me by stating I’m evading your question?
What you are asking is why didn’t the Founders address slavery then and there? Simple answer. It wasn’t that simple. They tried, but weren’t able to come to a resolution. So they had a choice to make; a nation or no nation founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights for all human beings. They decided a nation. When you read that Declaration of Independence, the Founders of this country left it to their progeny, to their children and grandchildren to fix this awful wrong, but first they had to form a nation. When you read the Constitution nowhere does it promote slavery. It is due to the Constitution that slavery ended. Slavery is incompatible with the Declaration of Independence.
Abraham Lincoln often and repeatedly referred to the Declaration of Independence which is the founding document and the Constitution is the governing document manifested from the Declaration of Independence and there is nothing about slaves, or blacks, or native Americans in the Declaration of Independence. It’s about human beings and individuals and Lincoln repeatedly made that point. They did try to address the issue of slavery, but couldn’t get it done. So they had a decision to make. They decided a nation.
So Federalist 54 isn’t in reference to the 3/5th clause? Please explain? But no, I didn’t need to spend an hour on the internet to formulate a reply. I knew you were pointing at Federalist 54 because leftists always point to the 3/5th clause as a gotcha moment that our Founders were racists. That they only viewed slaves as 3/5th a person.
Last edited by Nyfinestbxtf; 08-12-2021 at 05:38 AM..
You were the one misinterpreting what he said. Political hack? Wrong again. You obviously have no respect for the man. As a result, I have none for you. On to my ignore list you go. Good riddance.
Wow, you’re quite fond of Fauci. I had no idea. No, I didn’t represent what he has said. What he said is what he said. I have no respect for a person who is a bumbling lying flip flop idiot. He also lied about the origins of Covid when he knew back over a year ago that this virus leaked from a lab and he lied about indirectly funded this gain of function research. I don’t care if you have no respect for me. That has zero bearing on me. Ignore me if you like. You don’t need to announce it, just do it.
True Believers will always find rationalizations for contradictions. Facts are: numerous of American founding fathers were slave owners even as they wrote of “all men being created equal.” Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, et al …
17 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned a total of about 1,400 slaves. Of the first 12 U.S. presidents, eight were slave owners.
That clarified, not clear how continuing this tangent serves the thread purpose?
Wow, you’re quite fond of Fauci. I had no idea. No, I didn’t represent what he has said. What he said is what he said. I have no respect for a person who is a bumbling lying flip flop idiot. He also lied about the origins of Covid when he knew back over a year ago that this virus leaked from a lab and he lied about indirectly funded this gain of function research. I don’t care if you have no respect for me. That has zero bearing on me. Ignore me if you like. You don’t need to announce it, just do it.
Fact is, sir, you DON’T know any of these things you assert. You are a specious reader of materials motivated to find validation for your beliefs. It has become tediously tired and old here to see you spew falsehoods and baseless prognostications over and over and over. Try the P&OC thread … the crew over there love dumpster fires of opinion.
True Believers will always find rationalizations for contradictions. Facts are: numerous of American founding fathers were slave owners even as they wrote of “all men being created equal.” Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, et al …
17 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned a total of about 1,400 slaves. Of the first 12 U.S. presidents, eight were slave owners.
That clarified, not clear how continuing this tangent serves the thread purpose?
You don’t even properly describe the context of the book you continue to reference. When was the last time you have read Eric Hoffer’s True Believer? His book is in regards fanatical movements where discontented malcontents easily fall prey to such movements, not those who are content and desire to preserve the status quo. Now you’re attempting to link this book to our Founding?
True, many of the Founders were slave owners? That equates to our nation being found on slavery? Please show me where in any of our Founding documents that promotes slavery?
Last edited by Nyfinestbxtf; 08-12-2021 at 07:38 AM..
Fact is, sir, you DON’T know any of these things you assert. You are a specious reader of materials motivated to find validation for your beliefs. It has become tediously tired and old here to see you spew falsehoods and baseless prognostications over and over and over. Try the P&OC thread … the crew over there love dumpster fires of opinion.
It’s not about beliefs. It is about what is truth and what is not. The evidence points that this virus did not naturally occur, but was rather designed in a lab to infect humans. You blabbing about validation of beliefs and how tired you are is mute.
Last edited by Nyfinestbxtf; 08-12-2021 at 08:12 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
