Plea to Meso American Apologist

[waveslider]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"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" 

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

Is that talking about indentured servants or slaves?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, cdowis said:

And without this compromise, the Constitution would never have passed.  It was a "necessary evil" and despised by many at the Convention.  But they saw that they had no choice, and hoped to settle the issue of slavery at a  later time.

True or not (I am not arguing it isn't or whether or not it was the right thing to do, I am not informed enough to make a judgment but I lean towards it was wisdom), it disproves waveslider's claim that slavery wasn't ever constitutional, which was my only purpose in posting so not going to be debating anything else in case it was expected.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Is that talking about indentured servants or slaves?

 Both, the "bound to service" are indentured but considered in the category of free; there appears to be a conscious avoidance of using the term slave so when you see "other Persons" insert "slaves".  Indentured would also be migrators as free persons, I believe.  You import property, i.e. slaves.

[Calm]

waveslider, constitutional amendmendments are by nature added to the constitution.  They cannot be appealed to in order to demonstrate that slavery was never constitutional.

While it was state law that made made slavery legal, the Constitution allowed for it and made two constitutional conditions (do these qualify as law or are they labeled something else with laws being the stuff passed by Congress to implement them?) respecting slavery.  One could reasonably claim imo that it even promoted slavery through the 3/5s clause by giving slave states more political power and thus putting more power into the hands of slave owners who were generally the richer and more influential members in their states, even if it was not as much power as they wanted (5/5s count) or as little power as the Northern states preferred (0).

Edited September 1, 2016 by Calm

[Guest]

On August 19, 2016 at 2:22 PM, sam said:

For all the meso American apologist please stop endorsing the meso American model. It's been proven false.

In North America you have artifacts of metal shields, head plates, woven cloth clothing, Hebrew and old world culture, dna , matching Book of Mormon timelines, etc that matches in North American.

 

We do have those things? Having said that, this board is here for debate. 

[Calm]

PS: I believe the government did not put a tax on immigrants, though perhaps they charged fees for entering country as they do now.  Thus the importation tax applies to property as it does now when people are taxed (custom duty) when bringing property into the country.

[cdowis]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

it disproves waveslider's claim that slavery wasn't ever constitutional, which was my only purpose in posting so not going to be debating anything else in case it was expected.

I think the Dred Scott decision settled that issue.  

[waveslider]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

waveslider, constitutional amendmendments are by nature added to the constitution.  They cannot be appealed to in order to demonstrate that slavery was never constitutional.

While it was state law that made made slavery legal, the Constitution allowed for it and made two constitutional conditions (do these qualify as law or are they labeled something else with laws being the stuff passed by Congress to implement them?) respecting slavery.  One could reasonably claim imo that it even promoted slavery through the 3/5s clause by giving slave states more political power and thus putting more power into the hands of slave owners who were generally the richer and more influential members in their states, even if it was not as much power as they wanted (5/5s count) or as little power as the Northern states preferred (0).

I guess I stand corrected.

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

I guess I stand corrected.

There's no need for you to say you stand corrected. It doesn't matter much what fallen humans think the US Constitution is. What does matter is what the Lord's opinion is, and his opinion is that he sent noble spirits to the earth in the 18th century with a mission to accomplish. And as these noble spirits, now embodied in flesh, set about to accomplish that foreordained mission the Lord inspired them by his Spirit to establish a system of government that, if properly understood, was designed to overthrow slavery and tyrannical subjugation forever.

76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you—

 77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agencywhich I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

 80 And for this purpose (the full end of bondage) have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

In the eyes of the Lord -- and in the end his opinion is all that really matters -- the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were the signed death warrants of slavery, and it was just a matter of time before the Lord would see to it that the true spirit of the Declaration and the Constitution would gain the victory and human bondage would be overthrown. The Lord knew what he was doing.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

BA, are you saying that slavery wasn't ever constitutional?  If so, please explain that claim given the references in the Constitution to the practice of slavery.