How could the founding fathers sign the declaration of independence?

Many of those "fathers" wanted the declaration to have a strong statement against slvaery, but they also wanted all 13 colonies to sign, and South Carolina objected. Not much has changed, has it?

Simple, at that current time, slaves/Negroes were not considered men under the definition intended in the declaration of independence...that interpretation/definition has since changed, as have the laws concerning slavery...

Does not make them bad men, just products of their times

That said, it is well accepted that the slavery issue was brought up during the early days of the republic, but was tabled as the union was too fragile at the time to withstand debate over such a controversial topic

Probably just fed a troll

They signed with pen and ink. Probably a quill pen with some sort of feather.

THAT is how they signed it.

DUH.

The DoI was signed before the Human Genome Project proved that there is only one race of humans. In 1776 they believed in the White race myth. People don't believe that any more since scientists have proven there is only a single race of humans. Inventing races is passe and even criminal now. Race myth followers like Israel, Zionist, White Skin Heads, Ku Klux Klan, etc. are seeing their final days.

Look up Ben Rush.

Yanqui wrote:

Many of those "fathers" wanted the declaration to have a strong statement against slvaery, but they also wanted all 13 colonies to sign, and South Carolina objected. Not much has changed, has it?

You're a real moron. Revisionist history at its finest.

Yanqui,

You are product of your environment. Stupid, bigoted and in the Northeast.

I have business that often takes me to South Carolina. I'll admit that I was thinking how to straddle this racism thing but they are the most dedicated people (the whites) to clearing up the past wrongs and the blacks are very cool and not the hateful victims the North portrays them. It's a great and evolving environment.

They've move on a prospered. Maybe you should just move on.

Nope. You and the above poster are most assuredly both morons. It is neither revisionist nor inaccurate. No one is painting the north as saintly - they are just as guilty (ethically) as the south for writing one thing in the constitution but allowing the practice of something very different. HOWEVER, they most certainly did not have the stake in slavery that the south did, and the signing of the DoI was a clear capitulation to the southern slavery lifestyle that the south demanded protection of - without it, they would not unify with the other colonies.

I'm not really sure where remorse or righting past wrongs even factors into it. Most of the southerners I know are wonderful people who are not racist at all, or at the very least, are no more racist than their northern counterparts. That's not what they question asked. The fact is, the south was not willing to sign the declaration without protection of slavery.

For economic, social, and political reasons, slavery remained a contentious issue throughout the rest of the century and beyond, until coming to a boil during the Civil War. If anything, the Civil War was almost entirely political, and had nothing to do with any greater sense of morality in the north. You are both terribly uninformed, however, if you think Yanqui has posted anything but accurate history.

Hey f***wad, the point is things have changed. Yanqui's comment that things haven't made him a hypocrite.

The new bright star in the NFL is Michael Vick. He did prison time for his crimes. I'm a dog lover and he even had a president that I revile go to bat for him. Good for him. I'm giving him a second chance. Where is a bigoted poster like Yanqui in all of this? Would he give Vick a second chance? Yes, he would according to his previous posts but he wants to hold South Carolina to the past.

I hate liberals for their hypocrisy, because I used to be one and I can smell them a mile away.

Hypocrites + liars.

Neither of you know history wrote:

Nope. You and the above poster are most assuredly both morons..

And you are moreso because you didn't read the whole post, you idiot. We agree on the ssignings but things have changed in the south, you dumbass.

Conundrum wrote:

And still believe in slavery?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many of them didn't believe in slavery you prick. Slavery was in place throughout the world for thousands of years before the signing of the DoI. The founding of America was a radical experiment in freedom which eventually led to the abolition of slavery for the first time in history. But intellectual inertia is takes generations to overcome, so it didn't happen overnight. It's worth pointing out that the founders who were most opposed to slavery (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washingotn, Benjamin Franklin, etc. were decidedly of the STRICT LIMITED GOVERNMENT philosophy who advocated a constitutional REPUBLIC form of government.

I stand by absolutely everything I said.

By the way, "Urine Idiot," the presumptions you make about me and what I would or would not do or what I do or do not think are wild guesses at best.

Yeah, I'm all for second chances. And look at the political entity that is South Carolina today.

I most definitely read the whole post. It is unfortunate that you don't seem to understand the point - he was pointing out that society still frequently concedes to the minority few for the sake of preventing social and political discord, even when there are far greater ethical and human implications at stake.

At least, that's what I saw it as. Either way, I'm certainly not a dumbass, and at least know how to spell "signings". Hey, though, good thing you're consistent with your lack of intelligence!

Political Philosophy wrote:

[quote]Conundrum wrote:

It's worth pointing out that the founders who were most opposed to slavery (Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washingotn, Benjamin Franklin, etc. were decidedly of the STRICT LIMITED GOVERNMENT philosophy who advocated a constitutional REPUBLIC form of government.

Jefferson was quite conflicted on the issue, in part because he bought into the idea that the slaves were "less than equal (sorry about that phrase but it is quite late and the insomnia has entered into the not quite all there phase.)" It is quite an interesting story which can be accessed through a visit to the Google machine and a bit of selective reading.

Before DNA/RNA was discovered, people thought skin-color make you a separate race. Sounds stupid now but that's how they thought. They used to think to earth was flat too, and they even thought the universe circled around the earth. Now we know better, that there is only one race of humans. We know now that skin color has no corrleation to intelligence nor ability. Just like the paint color of your car has no affect on the performance of the car.

The situation regarding slavery in 1776 is totally irrelevant, in the light of your current circumstances.

The facts are that the Founding Fathers were white and of British stock.

Unique in the whole world at that time, we British introduced into the New World our laws, language and literature and the idea of representative government and a blueprint for greatness that gave the masses of European immigrants a flying start in the centuries to follow.

Where do you imagine, the evolution of such things as habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process, and the rule of law come from?

It was the white descendents of those early European settlers that tuned the USA into the greatest, wealthiest country the modern world has ever seen.

Up to 1960, nine out of every ten American citizens were white.

But now, assuming you’re white, you and your children will be living in a country that will become a majority non-white.

Around 2040 to be exact.

An astonishing, indeed unprecedented, transformation of a country.

All a result of your government policy—specifically, the 1965 Immigration Act and the subsequent collapse, or sabotage, of law enforcement at your southern borders.

And, of course, the main reason why the US has gone from being, by far, the world’s richest country - to the world’s greatest debtor nation ($13.8 trillion) and one heading to a state not unlike those south of the border.

We think we’ve got problems in the Euro zone - but in one month (November) alone, the US government spent $150.4 billion more than it collected in taxes.

Oh, and since Obama took office, US national debt has increased an average of $4.9 billion a day.

(Under the previous administration, the average daily debt increase was $1.7 billion.)

The history of slavery is of total insignificance right now.

Yanqui wrote:

Many of those "fathers" wanted the declaration to have a strong statement against slvaery, but they also wanted all 13 colonies to sign, and South Carolina objected. Not much has changed, has it?

True. South Carolina was the strongest proslavery voice of the 13 colonies. The eventual constitution would only be approved with some assurances that slavery would be allowed. Madison and Jefferson did promote legislation blocking the federal governments ability to regulate slavery.

In the 1790's a couple northerners proposed a bill outlawing slavery. Two of the South Carolina delegates argued that slavery was OK because the bible approved the practice. The Virgina delegates were more sophisticated but didn't want the slavery issue even discussed.

The point is they knew beter.

It was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who was the coward who wrote volumes of racist mythologies attempting to justify slavery. Calhoun was Adolph Hitler's and Theodor Herzl's role model. They copied vefrbatim the gentile and semitic jew racial superiority myths of Calhoun who died before South Carolina was torched by the Union Army, the local militants parked in the ass, and the local girls and women raped by freed slaves and Union heros.