[HOME] - [NEWS] - [MY CARTOONS] - [MY COMIC BOOK] - [MY MOVIES] - [MY PAPERS] - [HISTORICAL ESSAYS]

THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED TO ABOLISH SLAVERY

The true vision of America - as outlined by the Founding Father's writings is a philosophical vision that is consistent and really the crowing achievement of the enlightenment. George Washington took that theoretical world view and made it a reality by winning the Revolutionary War against the British. The war created the political space to make that vision a workalble government. Washington was chosen to be our first President by the founding fathers because of his wisdom. Washington's expertise in theory was war. He was a master general.

Other Famous founding fathers were military leaders and statesmen like George Washington. John Hancock was a merchant, smuggler, statesman, and prominent Patriot of the American Revolution. He served as president of the Second Continental Congress and was the first and third Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term "John Hancock" has become, in the United States, a synonym for a signature. Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable mercantile business from his uncle, himself a prominent smuggler.

All of these founding fathers wanted to get rid of slavery when we liberated ourselves from the slave trading British. Besides the obvious moral arguments, the founding fathers thought of the slave trade as a security weakness vis-a-vis the illuminati masons. The masons controlled the slave trade and the founding fathers did not want to allow masons to have their tenactles in the new Colonist economy.

The founding fathers liked having Africans in America but they wanted them to come through immigration and not slavery. That's actually why America established Liberia in 1821. The founding fathers wanted AFricans to come to America via Liberia rather than slavery. Unfortunately, the British were able to destroy the Liberian economy via their control of most of Africa.



The founding fathers even wrote a constitution that officially outlawed slavery. Slavery was obviously incompatible with the ideals of the US Constitution. The masons were able to block that version of the Constitution, but the founding fathers still made extra copies of the constitution that officially outlawed slavery. (these have been hidden away, National Treasure style). This alternative constitution also outlawed torture and indentured servitude. These were all things the illuminati Jewish masons made a lot of money off of so that part of the constitution was censored by the Illuminati Masons and the Catholic Church.

A close look at the document created in Philadelphia in 1787 will reveal the ambiguous language pertaining to the holding of slaves, since the words "slave" and "slavery" were never used in the Constitution. The deal that was struck with the masons was to remain neutral on slavery. The US Constitution never authorizes nor prohibits slavery. The founding fathers believed that the general intent of the constitutional which would later be further defined by the Bill of Rights was itself at odds with Slavery so even though they did not expressly prohibit it in the slavery, it was clear that slavery was against the spirit of the US Constitution.

The first indication of slavery in the Constitution appears in Article I, Section 2. This is the three-fifths clause that explains the apportionment of representation and taxation. It reads:

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.

Although the word slavery is not mentioned, "all other Persons" implies it. The clause explicitly makes reference to all other social or economic classes of the time, namely free people, bound servants, and Indians. The only economic class it does not refer to by name is that of slaves. This proves the reluctance of the Founders to include slavery in the Constitution.

The Constitution and the Framers were criticized as treating slaves as property, but a careful explanation of this clause will prove the opposite. The allocation of seats in Congress and the number of people to be taxed, although it was only three-fifths of the slaves, acknowledged that slaves were considered human beings and not merely property. They were included as people in the total number of those to be represented and taxed, not as the possession of a master. If they had not been included, they then may have been viewed as property, but since they were included, they were considered humans. The Bill of Rights would further defines this stance against slavery by saying that all humans are given ineliable human rights by their creator.

(BTW, the three-fifths idea was something initially rejected by Alexander Hamilton because he didn't want to acknowledge slaves were people. He ended up accepting it and championing it as a way of avoiding the full abolition of slavery in the US Constitution. The Illuminati wanted to keep the slave trade going in the United States. That was their primary objective as America was crafting its new government. )

The next mention of the institution of slavery in the Constitution is found in Article I, Section 9. Once again it is not mentioned by work, but it is implied. This section deals with issues of importation and taxation of the slave trade. It reads:

The Migration and 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.

This is a clause which must be carefully read and analyzed. It implies much more than a mere surface reading will bring to attention. First, the phrase "Migration and Importation of such Persons" implies the slave trade. Goods may be called imports, but if people are referred to as imports, it can mean nothing other than slavery. "e;States now existing" can mean only the original thirteen colonies which were already established at the ratification of the Constitution. This clause could not pertain to any states formed after the Constitution was established. Therefore, any territories that were later created could not participate in the importation of slaves. Also, the phrase "shall think proper to admit" implies that the states are free to choose to import slaves.

The clause then goes on to explain that the migration or importation of slaves cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808. The fact that the constitution seems to already anticipate outlawing slavery around the year 1808 shows that the Founding Fathers always wanted to prohibit slavery in the US - they were trying to strike a political compromise with the masonic illuminati to end slavery as fast as possible. The Illuminati threatened to have England attack again if the US did not make these compromises (which later on they did do.)

The Third and final mention of slavery in the US constitution is the worst. This is the fugitive-slave clause which reads:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom Service or Labour may be due.

This clause explains that no person held in service (which implied slavery) or labor in one state, and under that state's laws, can escape into another state and be relieved of his services. Even if a slave escapes to a free state with laws prohibiting slavery, he still must be returned to his rightful owner to whom he owes his services in the slave state. He is still a slave no matter where he is, as long as he belongs to his master. This point would later be discussed in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. This clause "…became the basis for the more notorious kind of federal intervention in behalf of the institution." It provided for the enforcement of returning slaves anywhere in the Union to their rightful master.

The clause's wording was very ambiguous and seemed to include apprentices and anyone else bound to service for a limited period. "…it drew no distinction between free and non-free persons." It was "[N]ot in what it said, but only how it was universally understood,…[that] the so-called fugitive-slave clause acknowledge[d] the existence of slavery in America." As with the other clauses, this one also did not use the word slavery, but it was understood to pertain to slaves.

The so-called fugitive slave clause in the Constitution is the only place where Slavery is really enabled by the Constitution. It is once again a compromise with the illuminati, but this time the illuminati got pretty much everything they wanted. The slave trading illuminati wants to make sure that their slaves (property) will never truly gain their freedom. Even if they escape to a colony where slavery is already illegal, they can be taken back to their slave owning masters in another state.

In reality it was very hard for masters to regain their slaves once their had fleed and resettled in nothern states where slavery was already abolished. It usually wasn't worth the money and most masters didn't bother trying. The only way the fugitive slave clause came up was if a freed slave got in trouble some other way in which case it could be used as a sort of deportation back to their master and slave status.

Because the provision requires slaves to be returned to their owners, it implies that "…the Free States could not be relied upon to return slaves who escaped into them." Thus there was no strong national support for slavery other than in the South. This is one more indication that the institution of slaver was controversial and unpopular.

In a way, the Framers acknowledged slavery while also limiting it. Even though many of the Framers were opposed to slavery, they knew it was necessary to tolerate it to avoid catastrophic conflict with the illuminati. The Founding Fathers treated it as a necessary evil and believed that it would eventually die out. They foresaw that slavery's importance would eventually diminish, but they needed a Constitution that would guide them through both the present and the future of the Union.

It is as though the framers were half-consciously trying to frame two constitutions, one for their own time and the other for the ages, with slavery viewed bifocally - that is, plainly visible at their feet, but disappearing when they lifted their eyes.

Slavery was neither widely accepted nor expected to continue. All three clauses referred to slaves as "Persons" and not property. Also, the fact that the word "slave" was never written in the Constitution demonstrated that slavery was not accepted by all the Framers, and they hoped it would be eliminated. They did not want to explicitly refer to slavery in a document that was supposed to stand the test of time, if the institution would inevitably die out.

Also, the protection of the slave trade only until 1808 indicated that Congress was likely to abolish it, which they soon did. As further proof of the inevitable end of slavery, neither the three-fifths compromise nor the fugitive-slave clause was offered any protection under the Constitution, as the slave trade had been protected from amendment. The limitation of the slave trade to only the original states and then the adoption of the Northwest Ordinance, which prohibited slavery in the territories, also indicated that slavery was the exception rather than the rule.

Therefore, a close examination of the Constitution and the attitudes of the Framers indicates that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document. It was, however, a document that incorporated compromise between the founding fathers and the slave trading illuminati masonic British. The Founding Fathers realized slavery was not an infinite institution, that it would eventually die out. They therefore created a document that represented the Union as it stood in 1787, and also as it would stand in the future.

It took the Civil War, Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to complete the true vision of the founding fathers. They were the final founding fathers. They gave us the vision of America that ever since has defined us. A righteousness conviction that a free man and woman is the vision of our creator and our government must be in service of that ideal.