How did the American founding fathers justify the idea of all

>>1794587
blacks aren't people

The Constitution literally says that blacks are only 3/5 human

>>1794596
But that contradicts the idea of all men being equal

>>1794587

All men are equal in the eyes of their creator, not on earth. It is a moral verdict, not a practical one. Delete your thread.

Sub-Saharan Africans were seen as animals, not sentient human beings by Europeans back then.

>>1794598
Right, and to justify slavery they put into the constitution that African slaves were only partially human, and therefore not equal.

Because Jefferson (the most intelligent one) who wrote the declaration of independence almost by himself tried to make it clear that there were changes that needed to be made
and of all the founding fathers he himself also later set steps forth to plant the seeds of a free world, the issue being that the culture had slavery so ingrained and honestly, it was too revolutionary for the time. So the answer is they were hypocrites, but their heart was in the right place and they did mean what they said.

>>1794611
its also worth mentioning that Jefferson was absent during the writing of the Constitution.

>>1794587

They didn't really believe in equality, at least not in the modern sense of the word. Also, remember that they weren't a hive-mind. They disagreed on stuff. John Adams never owned any slaves and he very frankly hated the very concept of it.

Jefferson always said he wanted slavery to be abolished "some time in the future, preferably after I'm already dead okay?" Jefferson was kind of an outrageous hypocrite, and his personnel writings indicate that he was aware of this and felt guilt about it......just not enough guilt to actually stop doing it.

George Washington owned slaves and there is no evidence that he was ever conflicted about it, but he was also the only one of the bunch to actually set his slaves free.

Benjamin Franklin was an abolitionist in his later years.

Alexander Hamilton was most anti-slavery. He never owned slaves and unlike virtually everybody else at the time, he actually believed that black people would be just as intelligent as whites if not for slavery keeping them uneducated.

That covers the big five. Anybody else you want to talk about?

Bit hard to not be conquered by Britian when half your country hates you for liberating their cheap workforce.

>>1794587
beasts aren't men anon

desu we should all just blame eli whitney

>>1794598
The founding fathers were white nationalists. The whole idea of America was a "experiment" of a alternative people-run government for Europeans. This changed drastically mainly in the 20th century due to the broad language used in the Constitution. So when they say all men are equal, they mainly are saying all white men are equal.

>>1795428
Nazi tier

>>1794618
Jefferson actually tried to end slavery in his own life but congress wouldn't cooperate.

They all probably thought black people were kept down by slavery, but I doubt many if any of them thought most blacks were capable of being intelligent. Lincoln wanted them sent back to their homeland. Perhaps they wanted them to be sent back, also.

>>1794598
>But that contradicts the idea of all men being equal

The part about "all men being equal" is in the Declaration of Independence(which was a declaration of war, not a legally binding social contract).

>>1794587
wanna know a secret?


. . . they lied

>>1795428
>when non-anglos spout bullshit about anglo history

I'm not anglo and even I know this isn't true.

>>1794595
Literally this is the answer to your question as what they thought back then.

>>1795480
Actually >>1794618 is s much better answer.

>>1794587
Human beings being hypocritical, knowingly so.

>>1794618
>at least not in the modern sense of the word

Who did in the 18th century? Literally no one.

>>1794587
where is this hellhole

>>1795867
It looks like Paris to me, if I remember the Metro right

>>1794587
The founding fathers just wanted to fatten their pockets.

>>1794618

You're forgetting the realpolitik aspect of it. The southern colonies were strongly loyalist and were threatening to break away from the country, it was also where slavery was the most prominent. That along with having the capital closer to the South was political compromise.

>>1795881
RIP France

>>1794587
Niggers weren't men.

>>1794596
No it doesn't, it says:

>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

>>1794618
Do you or anyone else have any good resources or books that talk about the different personalities and beliefs of the Founding Fathers and how they thought about each other?

>>1794587
Why do SJWs support racially based affirmative action?

File: 1447815585459.png (332KB, 598x716px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 598x716px

>We have a choice between keeping slavery around and fucking up our fledgling country that just gained independence
>I wonder what we should do

>>1794587
*all white males are equal

The founding fathers never suggested that women or black slaves were on the same level as them (and why would they back in the 18th century)

>>1796992

This honestly. Call it massively hypocritical if you want, but they clearly didn't include non-white males in "All men are created equal."

Also those of them who did have misgivings about it elected to kick the ball down the road, being afraid that pressing the issue would tear the new country apart (which they were completely right about).

>>1794587
read what islamic scholars wrote about blacks...

>>1794587
The very wording of all "men" meant exclusivity was in their minds as they wrote it.

>>1797018
Varied a lot and not the topic of this thread.

because stopping slavery wasnt as simple as just flicking a switch

>>1796888

>Do you or anyone else have any good resources or books that talk about the different personalities and beliefs of the Founding Fathers and how they thought about each other?

Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power is the only book I've read on the subject but it covers a lot of ground if you're willing to plough through it. Jefferson's feuds with Adams and Hamilton are discussed in length. Washington was kind of a neutral figure in this because he was just trying to get both sides to get along but I get the sense that he found Jefferson's constant "MUH FREEDUM" rather annoying.

Jefferson was one of the last people to see Washington alive. According to the book, the encounter when something like this:

>Be Jefferson
>Go to Washington's house to tell him that Hamilton is ruining everything
>Washington is like "dude Hamilton isn't that bad."
>Jefferson is like "look man he's totally a monarchist you have to do something about him!"
>Washington: "Look, in case you haven't noticed, l am really sick and really old, and I'm basically gonna die in two minutes. Go away."
>*Jefferson leaves*
>*Washington dies*

>>1797018
blacks like Bilal RA?

>>1794598
black people aren't men, women are women

>>1794587
>justify the idea of all men being equal

The founding fathers didn't believe this. You're taking their words out of context, although I don't blame you considering our popular culture constantly does it. The Declaration of Independence makes the statement,

>...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...

Which is just Jefferson paraphrasing the accepted theories of Natural Law and Social Contract of the Enlightenment Period. The statement doesn't actually imply that all men are "equal" but that they are "equally free" in the state of nature. This is the cornerstone argument for why the colonies could break their legal obligations to the Crown. This becomes pretty evident when you look at the earlier Virginia Declaration of Rights written by George Mason, it states,

>...all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Therefore the Declaration of Independence never made any sweeping statement of the equality of man. It merely argued for their right of independence. This whole argument is grounded in Lockean and Hobbean political philosophy. This is obvious when you look how both the Declaration of Independence and Virginia copy John Locke's assertion in Two Treatise of Government that the purpose of civil government is to protect property which he describes as "life, liberty, and estate".

File: 1452407907484.jpg (25KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 384x384px

>>1797204
cont.

This becomes even darker when you realize that John Locke authored the Constitutions of the Carolinas where he set up the system of slavery in the new colony. He also mentions slavery and conquest in chapters 3 and 16 of Treatise of Government. There he defends both practices as being "war" against those outside of the contract. Basically, "legal rights" are only bestowed to those within our society and not non-citizens. This was deeply ingrained within founding of the United States of America. All you have to do is look farther down at the Declaration of Independence to see this major grievance with the Crown.

>He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

by domestic insurrections, they mean slave revolts.

>>1794618

>George Washington owned slaves and there is no evidence that he was ever conflicted about it, but he was also the only one of the bunch to actually set his slaves free.

I should make a quick correct here:

Jefferson did free a small number of his slaves. Jefferson went on a trip to Paris after the French revolution and he took Sally Hemings with him. Sally has a female slave who Jefferson basically used as a fuck toy. Sally was mixed-race and her skin was pale but still dark enough that she was considered non-white. While in Paris, Sally discovered that the new French constitution installed after the French revolution said that any slave in France could sue for freedom because slavery was prohibited now under the new constitution of France. She threatened to leave Jefferson and stay in Paris unless Jefferson agreed to set her brother and a few other people free. Jefferson was pissed off by this but he eventually agreed to it. Jefferson also had several children via Sally all of whom where freed upon reaching 21 years old.

>>1796735
>The southern colonies were strongly loyalist

they teach you this meme up north? The war was won in the south as the northern campaign was at a standstill with British control of NYC impregnable. Also, the very fact that the south was an export economy meant that they desired freedom from British trade laws more than anyone.

>>1794595
>>1795480
It's really always the same argument

>blacks arent people so we can enslave them (Yuros, 17/18th century)
>Slavs arent people so we can massacre them (Germans, 1942/1945)
>Fetus arent people yet so we can abort them (Western world, current era)

People born into it never see the flaw of that logic and the abomination seems justified in their eyes

>>1794587
Many founding fathers (those mainly from the north) did believe that they were deserving of rights, but they put their ideals of compromise ahead of that.
i.e. It was to appease the southerners, and avoid a split in the revolution. From then on, it was just a big game to delay the civil war.

>>1794607
The 3/5 provision wasn't to justify slavery, which no one even questioned at the time. It was to balance how many electoral votes from blacks that southern states would get.

>>1794617
and owned slaves to the end of his life.

>>1794595
Actually it was this

Make your enemies out to be less than human and it will justify all your acts.

>>1794618
John Adams was a royalist who should've been tar-feathered.

>>1796791
You know what he meant...

>>1797134
Redditpost

But thanks

>>1797258
Northerners can't see tthemselves as anything but "on the right side of history."

>>1797204
>of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty,
This still boils down to "either Blacks are animals or the Founding Fathers are hypocrites."

>>1798672
how?

Blacks weren't a part of any compact. Go read Locke for christ's sake.

File: adwdawdwad.png (37KB, 1360x702px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1360x702px

I really don't know lol. Well on one hand slavery sort of supported the economy at the time? So it might be right to say that they were just doing that to not become broke? On the other hand, at the time America was a majority white nation and did not experience the brutalities of African American slavery just yet..... I guess to sum it up quick, they made a decision which at the time seemed to align with their own values without predicting some dire consequences.

>>1794598
The Constitution also explicitly barred all people not considered white from immigrating to America. There was an implicit understanding between all of the founders that America was a country for white European protestants, and no one else. The distinction didn't need to be spelled out.

>>1798932
Why did you upload that image? You know that replies aren't like starting new threads, right? You don't need an image to reply to an existing thread.