not the same thing. They did not compromise on slavery, all but a few felt it was right. There was not some big argument on slavery with half giving up their call to end slavery for the “better good” of the document, most if not all owned slaves or believed in slavery.

You are not making sense with this argument.

about the count being your example. Lets not stretch the goalposts now. You simply stated that had there not been a compromise,

‘otherwise slavery would have been outlawed then and there, you know

you can side with who you want to, but that does not change the fact that slavery in itself was not an issue at the convention. The original poster stated that had their not been compromise, slavery would have been done away with. That is just not the case. There were slavery compromises, such as the count or the agreement to not ban the slave trade for 20 years, but while I would agree there were people there who hated slavery, most had no use for blacks and had no real interest in ending slavery. Were there some, yes. Patrick Henry refused to even attend due to, as he stated ” I smell a rat”, but just like his absence, there was an absence of debate over the abolishing of slavery.

If you or anyone else want to state there were some compromises over slavery issues, I will and should agree. But there was no real debate if any over the ending of slavery. Whites today want to believe that the majority or at least a large portion of “enlightened” northerners were anti slavery, pro black, saw them as equals, wanted slavery ended, etc but it is just not true. While there were the ones who did not agree with slavery, they were the minority. And even many of those who hated slavery had no use for the black man. It was the way it was back then in our country and in Europe. To take it a step further, many of the ones who were “against” slavery were not against it due to its inhumanity, they were against it because they feared an uprising in the south that would come to them. And this attitude was the attitude at the convention. The greatest hypocrisy that came from the convention was the “all men are created equal………..” because that is not how most saw blacks.

The reality is, slavery was not a compromise, it was not a major discussion if it was even discussed at any length, there was no compromise on southern slavery, only on aspects of the slaves life such as the count and the trade.

These are just two comments from two of the New England attendees and their stance as recorded by James Madison.

Mr. Oliver Ellsworth (of Connecticut) …Let every state import what it pleases. The morality (worthiness) or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the states themselves…The old Confederation had not meddled (interfered) with this point, and he did not see the (need) for bringing it within the policy of the new one.

Mr. Roger Sherman (of Connecticut)…He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the states were now possessed of the right to import slaves, and as it was expedient (useful) to have as few objections as possible to the proposed government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition (end) of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States…

If you have the time, here are all his notes and you will see that while there was a tiny bit of discussion concerning slavery and its evil by guys such as Luther Martin, you will find few opposed slavery enough to bring up the discussion and even fewer made any stink about it. They simply debated certain aspects of slavery such as how they would be counted and when to end importing slaves.

Much of it is quite interesting if you have the time to read all of it. Interesting to see the issues that were raised at the convention and how they came to their final decisions.

MadisonNotes

to reply to the right person before making some smart ass remark about education. I never stated in my post they did not compromise on anything, unlike the above poster, my only reference was to the posters assertion that slavery was a compromise. In that alone, he is wrong. His statement nor my retort had nothing to do with the 3/5′s issue or any of the other issues you raised. It had only to do with his slavery analogy and the fact that there were few if any who wanted slavery ended at that point and even less who wanted anything in the constitution as to the ending of slavery. While the 3/5 count did have some on both sides upset, it was not a big point of contention.

not only did they fight, they gave their lives and their blood for the fight. And as far as the constitution, again piss poor analogy. It was and still is considered a very radical document that granted rights to people unknown at that time. They did not compromise, they were radical.

I think you are twisting or misconstruing what is a fight and what is a stupid fight. We are in trouble, deep trouble and the only way to fix it is to fight. Compromise will not fix a thing and here is why:

Democrats want status quo, they want to keep the massive entitlements, they want to raise the corporate tax on the “evil” oil costing the consumer an extra buck fifty at the pump which gives them the power they want to force “green” on us, they want to tax the hell out of the “rich”, and they want the debt limit raised so they can spend more. This will bring our country to its knees and cause our temp or perm destruction. How do you compromise with that. The only right thing to do is for the repubs to fight and fight until they win.

Now a stupid fight would be something along this line: Ryan wants 1 trillion cut from entitlements, Demint wants 1.5 trillion. Nothing gets done because neither side will budge. So instead of DeMint walking towards the 1 trillion even if he has to go all the way and/or the same for Ryan, we end up with no cuts. That would be a stupid fight.

Not sure how you or anyone thinks compromise with the Dems gains a thing but the election of more dems because we failed on our promises. At this time, until 2012, there is an element of compromise that must occur due to the democratic controlled senate and Obama and his veto pen, but that only applies to a certain extent and a few things. Not going to get a trillion in cuts right now, not going to get 100 billion, but giving up almost all of our demands is not compromise, it is defeat. And now that we can keep the dems from raising the debt ceiling, time to get most of what we want. Compromise to a certain extent on the debt ceiling, but make our gains 10 times as valuable.