Republican's Latest Monumental Faux Pas

That and your previous post on the subject are close but no cigar as they say.

Article 1 section 9 made it possible for congress to pass a law banning importation of slaves but in no way gave them method to "prohibit slavery" or "outlaw" it as you claimed.
Slavery was already a contentiousl issue among the states as the constitution was being drafted and abolishing it would have made it impossible to form the union. Conversely there were states that didn't have and didn't want slavery in the union and this was tossing breadcrumbs to them in an appeasement concession. The slave states shrugged their shoulder because they knew that in twenty years they would be awash in slaves with their own farm animal style aggressive breeding program and importation of slaves would no longer be necessary.

 

So we are in agreement that your constitutional argument is null and void. As for your slavery claim I'm not anti abortion in the first trimester. Am I included in your slavery of women hypothesis? Just curious.

 

And I gotta love the FACT that you could not refute or even address this:

The ONLY people who want to go back to slavery are ANTI-CHOICERS who want to take away women's right to their own body, which is SLAVERY..

Can't deal with it??

Hardly...you've been proven wrong.

Yes, you are …... the fetus isn't even viable until 23 - 28 weeks. when it receives PROTECTIONS NOT RIGHTS ( if that's where you're trying to go )

 

Wrong!

Slavery was LEGAL from 1640 and if the Slave states were unable to breed enough slaves in 136 years what makes you believe that they would have been able to "breed" enough slaves in just 20 years?

The 1800 Census showed less than 900,000 slaves (less than 17% of the population) and the 1820 Census listed less than 1.2 million slaves (still less than 17%) and by 1830 slaves were down to just 15.5% of the population so this "breeding" program of yours was a miserable failure. Furthermore those slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person so for the purposes of elections they were never more than 10%.

in 1807 Jefferson signed the prohibition on the importation of slaves as of 1808 and by the 1860 Census slaves were less than 13% of the population.

If anything that clause was an APPEASEMENT to the slave states to get them so sign off on the Constitution which they did with the erroneous belief that no one would actually carry it out.

Worth noting that Jefferson actually ran for office on the basis of prohibiting the importation of slaves and was elected which demonstrates quite clearly that there were just not enough slaves around for the slave states to prevent Jefferson from being elected.

 

All your statistics show is white population grew at a faster rate than slave population in the south where the slave trade was flourising for the many decades after 1808 which culminated in the civil war.
Your previous assertions that article one section nine gave congress authority to "prohibit" and or "outlaw" slavery is unbelievably wrong as the institution continuing until the civil war and the emancipation proclomation demonstrably illustrates.

This clause relates to the slave trade. It prevented Congress from restricting the importation of slaves

 

Your original fallacious allegation was that the Founding Fathers "accepted slavery" whereas I have established that the opposite was actually true for the MAJORITY of the FF who had every intention of ultimately abolishing it.

That Clause in the Constitution makes it abundantly clear that the FF did NOT "accept slavery" as you so fallaciously alleged and they were prepared to take the necessary steps towards it's ultimate eradication.

So no amount of semantic parsing on your part is going to substantiate your factually erroneous allegation about the FF's "acceptance of slavery".

 

"Also, according to the Gilder Lehrman Institute, of the total African-American population in 1860, nearly 90 percent were slaves. And, while blacks made up only 13 percent of the entire country, in the South one in three people was black."

https://www.theroot.com/slavery-by-the-numbers-1790874492

 

The founding fathers did indeed accept slavery as your introduction of the clause that gave congress authority to ban importation but not ownership of slaves proves. It also proves you were wrong when you asserted the clause itself gave congress authority to prohibit and our outlaw slavery. It absolutely did not. This is not semantic parsing and words have meaning. Importation and ownership are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings.

 

So what?

The 10% of blacks who were NOT slaves could vote for themselves.

According to the math your slaves only accounted for 7% of the electorate nationwide and a mere 45% of the vote in the Southern slave states.

 

Regurgitating your debunked fallacy does not alter the fact that it has already been debunked.

You need to PROVE with CREDIBLE sources that the FF's "accepted slavery".

You can't!

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/06/137647715/weekly-standard-founding-fathers-opposed-slavery

The documented FACTS establish that the FF's did everything they could to LIMIT and REDUCE slavery which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "accepting slavery" as you have so erroneously alleged WITHOUT even any attempt at substantiation.

 

Actually I need to prove that your allegations that the constitution had a clause that "would allow for the outlawing of slavery" was false which I most certainly did. The founding fathers did indeed accept the institution of slavery as necessary to form and keep the union.

The consititution in no way shape or form prohibited the owning of slaves. Not when it was written and not after twenty years as per your failed attempt to use artice 1 section 9 which only allows for congress to make importation of slaves illegal with no mention of outlawing slavery itself.

As for your third false claims that the south was dependent on importation of slaves to keep slavery alive and their breeding program was a failure I provided the real numbers. One in every three people in the south was a slave at the time of the civil war. No shortage of slaves there! LOL
Three false claims and you're out.

 

Calling anti abortion laws slavery is an insult to descendents of actual slaves

 

Dangerous but dumb = Trumped up Republicans

 

Hardly.

I think they will agree that taking away one's right to one's own body is slavery...there is no insult...

The ONLY people who want to go back to slavery are ANTI-CHOICERS who want to take away women's right to their own body, which is SLAVERY..

 

Damn right. And they are...

 

on the contrary it was Republican Reagan who passed a criminally anti gun rights law in California with the blessings of the NRA and other righties

 

Double post delete

 

What SteadyPie fails to realize is that Roe was consistent with the ancient Anglo Saxon law. Further, that is was decided and confirmed by a Republican majority court.

 

Usually it is right wingers who demand that the government stop intruding into people's lives. Suddenly they reverse course here.

 

Mebbe the Judeo-Christian god was a Marxist since he endorsed the mass killing of children who are Canaanite or Amalekite in the Old Testament (?)

 

that was through constitutional amendment, not legislation

 

actually it is the reverse - right wingers fail to understand that Roe is consistent with reproductive rights under the Anglo Saxon common law as I have repeatedly pointed out in this forum

see Blackstone's legal dictionary for "quickening" and reproductive rights

 

Show me where pro life people call for buying and selling women like cattle, for working them like plow horses and beating them for control and pleasure. Tell me when they force them to have sex with males they chose for genetic qualities and then confiscate the children to sell to the highest bidder. Then you will have a point. As of now you have hysterical ranting and your claims are indeed insults to people who's ancestors suffered this treatment.

 

There is no evidence of that, just another liberal lie so they don't have to face their past...

 

I'm sorry, but did you just cite law that was prior to the formation of the United States of America? Holy Crap. It's worse than I thought with these Leftists.