The debate "The Founding Fathers put slave on the road to extinction." was started by
August 29, 2019, 4:57 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jrardin12 posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
jrardin12 and 15 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, HusamAli, codyray16, akankshajha, Shrivali_16 and 10 visitors disagree.
I will get back to you on that. Right now I am traveling and don't have those books with me.
how can you claim that the 3/5ths clause prevented the south from counting slaves for congressional seats when the entire purpose of the 3/5ths law was to count slaves for the purpose of increasing the south's congressional seats?!? thats wrong.
as for the territory aquisitions, half of the new states HAD TO BE slave states regardless of what they wanted because the south wanted to ensure that abolishion could not be forced on them.
your version of history is extemely twisted and cherry picked.
1) I don't have a copy of those books. I can't confirm or deny what they say.
2) even if I did have access to those books, expecting someone to go and read an entire book to try to disprove something you haven't provided any evidence for is not reasonable. If I told you I read a book that completely disproves you but you have to go read it for yourself to know what it says, that would kind of kill the debate.
Either provide direct evidence, ie a quote that I can actually check or it will become impossible to debate.
I provided an author as a source of what I said as well as the documents themselves.
I just told you what my research for the 3/5ths clause found. You didn't provide any information that countered what I said. I see nothing in there about abolishing slavery. If you have different information then please provide it.
The Louisiana purchase did not abolish slavery. Unless you have information different than what I have found, please stop saying that. If you have other info I missed, please provide it.
The northwest ordinance did prevent slavery in the new states. That is true. But as I have said, this was also fully supported by slave holding states. They clearly did not intend for this to lead to the abolishing of slavery. So saying the ordinance was intended to make more non slave states so that slavery could be abolished is explicitly not true. Some people might have intended that, but at least half of the people who approved them clearly intended the exact opposite.
I am unable to find any specific references saying that he was unable to free his slaves. The only one I did find was that they restricted the ability to free them on his death. But I acknowledge that Jefferson was an abolitionist. Although apparently his idea was to mass deport them back to africa, which is also kind of crappy.
If you read the debate on the 3/5ths Clause you can see that it was about ending slavery.
The Louisiana Purchase and Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery with the hope of creating more free states that would outnumber slave states so in the future amendments would be made to end the institutions.
Thomas Jefferson could not free his slaves, not because he did not want to, but because the debt laws in Virginia prohibited him from doing so.
My sources are Joseph J. Ellis's books on the American beginnings.
The 3/5ths rule was just political gamesmanship. The north didn't want slaves to count because it reduced the political power of the south. This has absolutely nothing to do with abolition of slavery. You could make the argument that it had an effect, but that was not the intention. It was all about increasing the power of northern politicians.
The Louisiana purchase did not prevent slavery. It prevented one group from being enslaved. But that group had already been protected from being enslaved. Going back on that would have caused big problems as the natives would have lost protections they previously had and they would have been very angry. This was largely a political move, not one aimed at ending slavery.
The northwest ordinances did curtail slavery. But the motives of the people behind it are somewhat suspect. It was supported by the slave states so it is hard to say what motivations other people involved may have had. At least half the people who supported it clearly had no intention of ever abolishing slavery.
I'm not saying that a number of the founding fathers didn't agree with the abolition of slavery. But they did very little about it. They were also massive hypocrites. Jefferson owned over 600 slaves during his life and freed only 7 of them. He may have wanted the practice to stop, but not enough to actually do much about it. And certainly not enough to lose any of his own money.
Jefferson was a slave owner and Founding Father who wanted to end slavery. These Acts had already been decided at the Constitutional Convention.
The Northwest Ordinance and Louisiana Purchase set precedent for Congress to prohibit slave in the territories. This argument (the Federal government having the power to outlaw slavery in the territories would be the leading cause of the Civil War.
The 3/5ths. Clause would prohibit the South from counting slaves for seats in Congress. This gave less power for the Southern states to keep slavery legal by reducing the amount of those represented since the Deep South wanted them to count for representation.
yes, this was not the original article i had read that gave me a different impression. But this article also describes how the idea for the 3/5ths compromise was not initially about political distribution of seats. It was initially about taxes. In the final version, 4 years later, it was about both.
In the early stage (where it was about taxes) the north wanted slaves to count as high as possible. Once it was about both political power as well as taxes they wanted them to count as little as possible. That doesn't show that they cared about the freedom of the slaves. It shows they only cared about using the issue to gain some sort of advantage.
your article opens by implicitly stating that representation was the primary reason (by saying "aside from being a complex system for representation").
it then brings up how it was suggested preconstitutionally as a tax solution that was never accepted. the reasoning behind the accepted version was for representation in the new congress, turning the previously slave state harmful tax, into a very beneficial trade for more representation.
like I said, i'm not an expert. But the article I read says it was initially created because of taxation. Some states were intentionally depreciating the value of their land to pay less taxes so they wanted to switch to taxation by population. They then needed to decide what slaves should count as. It then came up again 4 years later in 1787 when deciding political apportionment.
according to american history books, the 3/5ths thing was for representation in the house (more representatives/influence), not taxes.
still nothing to do with human rights.
I'm not american and my knowledge of early american history isn't my strongest area. But here is what I found.
the 3/5ths clause was created to try to get the south to pay more in taxes. It has nothing to do with the rights of slaves. It has to do with how much taxes need to be paid per slave. I don't see how that points to them being abolitionists, just that they wanted the southern states to pay more in taxes.
The acts ending the importation of slaves in 1794 and 1807 were based on abolitionist principles. They were pushed by Jefferson who was an abolitionist.
The northwest ordinances were supported by both abolitionists and slaver states. The slave owners didn't want the new states to be able to compete with them for the production of tobacco which required slaves to be profitable. i agree that there was abolitionist sentiments involved, but this was supported by both supporters and detractors of slavery so it isn't exactly evidence supporting your point.
I'm unclear how the Louisiana Purchase is evidence they wanted the abolition of slavery. They allowed slavery to persist. The only restriction i see is that they continued the rules that had already been in place under the Spanish, IE they could not enslave the natives. But this isn't exactly evidence for your point either. They just continued a law that was already being followed there.
what do land acquisitions have to do with ending slavery?
Yes, they intentionally paved the way to end slavery.
Could you clarify the topic a little so I can do some reading before weighing in?
Are you claiming that the founding fathers intentionally set america on a road to the abolition of slavery? Or is the point that their actions led to the abolition, but it was not intentional?
I would like to debate this issue. Please feel free to explain why you disagree.
The Declaration of Independence, the 3/5ths Clause, the 1794 and 1807 Acts ending the slave trade, the Northwest Ordinance and the Louisiana Purchase prove it.