# Are the concessions made by the Founding Fathers morally reprehensible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2013, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830 "2013-11-01T12:27:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/41 "2013-11-02T03:29:12Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > You cannot change the world if you cannot let a man be between worlds. I like that line; is it original, or a quote from somewhere? > [@Farin](#): > > Yesterday, you were hanging anti-gay posters. Today, you are saying the gays are cool fellows. To any outside observer (especially those that hinged their statements as for or against your own), you are being a hypocrite. > > No one but you can know about the midnight epiphany, and no one will give credence to what you say, again. You were hypocritical. The best you can hope for is that some will believe you are “just” a turn coat. > > You as a generic debate device, not you personally, mr moderator. No. Hating pizza yesterday and liking pizza today does not make me a hypocrite. Claiming to hate pizza while devouring it, or claiming to love pizza while growing furious at the sight of it would be hypocritical. Believing something today that I did not believe yesterday does not make me a hypocrite, no matter how quickly I make that transition. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/42 "2013-11-02T03:48:42Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But who is “they”? > [@Miller](#): > > You know. Those guys. “It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone’s fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I’m one of Us. I must be. I’ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We’re always one of Us. It’s Them that do the bad things.” — Terry Pratchett, _Jingo_ ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/43 "2013-11-02T04:06:10Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Reading what Washington wrote about Blacks shows that he didn’t believe they were “naturally equal”. They were mentally inferior to Whites in his mind. > > With such a view, you can’t expect Blacks to ever be fully equal. If you grant them equal rights, you’ll perceive it as an artificial decision, consistent with principles, but not adapted to the reality of black people’s limitations. > > So, you’re unable to provide a completely sensible solution. If on top of that sticking with the principles leads to a number of significant issues, possibly even endangering the country, it’s really easy to see why you’ll kick the ball to be picked up by future generations. Especially since from a pragmactical point of view, slavery is relatively well adapted to the respective abilities and needs of the two races, both generally speaking benefiting from the situation. > > So, I don’t think it’s going to be a really difficult moral dilemna. There’s nothing seriously wrong with maintening slavery until a better approach is found and practical. > [@mhendo](#): > > I’m a little confused. Are you musing here about what Washington might have thought, or are you arguing, yourself, that there was nothing seriously wrong with maintaining slavery in that situation? I think (and hope) it’s the former: that everything else in **clairobscur** ’s post follows from “With such a view” (that Blacks are mentally inferior to Whites). From what I understand, a lot of people in the 18th and 19th centuries held similar views, even the ones who were against slavery; and it had an element of self-fulfilling prophecy to it. I can imagine myself, if I had lived in the “right” time and place, believing something like this, if I had never been exposed to evidence to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/44 "2013-11-02T04:14:16Z")
> [@Oedipus](#): > > I’m going to try my best not to poison the well and make sure to keep a pretty open mind, but the thoughts of the new Steve McQueen movie, “12 Years a Slave”, haunt my actions today. > > I just watched the movie last night and I keep feeling worse and worse about the feeling that the Founding Fathers allowed the amoral, inhuman practice of human slavery continue under their watch. I know they were conflicted about their feelings about the institution and if they tackled slavery at such an early period in the nation’s history, it might spell disaster for the nation…but still… > > I don’t know. I just want to open the floor for the conversation. Well, don’t forget, many of the FFs were slaveholders themselves, and most of the rest believed sincerely in the hereditary mental and moral (not necessarily the spiritual) inferiority of negroes. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/45 "2013-11-02T04:53:40Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Reading what Washington wrote about Blacks shows that he didn’t believe they were “naturally equal”. They were mentally inferior to Whites in his mind. Well, of course; he had to believe that in order to justify slavery. It’s no different than all the millions of men who throughout history convinced themselves that _women_ were intellectually inferior and therefore weren’t their equals, despite talking to women on a regular basis and being outwitted by them as often as not. Willful self-delusion in action, and very common behavior then and now. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/46 "2013-11-02T06:51:20Z")
Considering that had this compromise not been made and abolition insisted upon, there would have no real Constitution or a strong central government in the United States, slavery would have lasted longer in the South without the forces of abolition operating. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/47 "2013-11-02T07:54:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, of course; he had to believe that in order to justify slavery. It’s no different than all the millions of men who throughout history convinced themselves that _women_ were intellectually inferior and therefore weren’t their equals, despite talking to women on a regular basis and being outwitted by them as often as not. Willful self-delusion in action, and very common behavior then and now. I use to have a link to an extnsive list of Washington’s quotes about slavery, but it apparently was on a previous computer.[Here’s](http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm) another interesting link, though. There’s not much about his views of black people, but it still shows how uncaring he was. His commitment to freedom is well illustrated by this part where a slave actually claims she would rather die than not be free. He juts wants his property back : > [@](#): > > A gloomier picture emerges from the story of Oney [Ona] Judge who ran away at age 22 in the 1790’s. She had attended Martha Washington since the age of 10, was the daughter of seamstress Betty, and had herself become a “Perfect Mistress of her needle.” She fled in 1796 from Philadelphia, then to NYC where she took sail for Portsmouth, NH. GW protracted negotiations to retrieve her [extending even to the year of his death] do not reflect well on him. Referring to her as a “mulatto girl” when she was a young adult [later in an article published in the mid-19th century she was described as “nearly white” and “very much freckled” who “might easily pass for a white woman”]. GW spoke of Ona’s “ingratitude,” of her leaving “without the least provocation,” of her being treated more “like a child than a servant,” of her being duped by a Frenchman - the classic rationalizations of an aggrieved master. [GW wrote about the best way to get her back “If inquiries are made openly, her seducer (for she is simple and inoffensive herself) would take alarm and adopt measures (if he has not tired of her) to secrete or remove her.”] Ona responded eloquently that she had left of her own free will and from “a thirst for compleat freedom.” She expressed affection for the Washington family and said that she might return to Virginia if she was guaranteed her freedom, but that she “should rather suffer death than return to Slavery.” GW rejected her proposed bargain: granting her freedom would only “discontent her fellow servants” and reward bad behavior, setting a “dangerous precedent.” He wanted her put on board a vessel for Virginia, forcibly if necessary, but surreptitiously so as not to incite mob action. Ever attentive to his reputation, GW wished above all to avoid public embarrassment. Ona had her own plans. Apparently warned by the Governor of New Hampshire, she avoided capture, married a free mulatto, and settled down to life in NH. Later she wrote about her escape, the only 18th century Virginia runaway slave who has left her own account of her actions. At that point in her life a devout Christian, Ona declared she had “never received the least mental or moral instruction” while at Mount Vernon, and the stories of GW’s piety and prayers, in so far as she ever saw or heard while she was his slave, had no foundation in fact. With the benefit of being French, which means I haven’t been indoctrinated to admire Washington, I’ve no belief that this man was exceptionally moral, not even very commited to freedom, except for himself and the small subset of people similar to him. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised to learn that he despised the common people too, for instance (of course, you’re free to enlightnen me if I’m wrong). Originally, I intended to answer to **Der Thris** that I could buy that his beliefs were genuine, since it’s easy to be deluded when everybody around you think the same, when for obvious reasons you lack counter-examples, that even though it’s morally more comfortable to think of yourself as a well-intentioned protective patriarch than as an opressor, the self-delusion doesn’t need to be conscious, etc… But after reading the excerpt I quoted above, where his slave claims her own commitment to freedom, I changed my mind. He couldn’t ignore that this commitment was exactly as strong as his own. So he had to be an uncaring bastard, content with his priviledges, and not particularly interested in extending them to other people if it were to cost him something. Instead of a well-intended, if misguided, Washington, I’ve now in mind, indeed, a careless hypocrite. I agree with **Der Trihs** that his self-delusion was, indeed, willful. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/48 "2013-11-02T08:06:07Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > If you say one thing and do another? That’s exactly what hypocrisy means. Yesterday, you were hanging anti-gay posters. Today, you are saying the gays are cool fellows. To any outside observer (especially those that hinged their statements as for or against your own), you are being a hypocrite. > > No one but you can know about the midnight epiphany, and no one will give credence to what you say, again. You were hypocritical. The best you can hope for is that some will believe you are “just” a turn coat. > > You as a generic debate device, not you personally, mr moderator. No, hypocrisy means saying one thing and acting in the opposite fashion _at the same time_. Changing your mind about something is not hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/49 "2013-11-02T08:06:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Considering that had this compromise not been made and abolition insisted upon, there would have no real Constitution or a strong central government in the United States, slavery would have lasted longer in the South without the forces of abolition operating. Or slavery would have been abolished earlier by the British… ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/50 "2013-11-02T14:39:03Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I like that line; is it original, or a quote from somewhere? It’s a personal belief. I have no idea if my brain stole it from someone. 🙂 > [@Eonwe](#): > > No. Hating pizza yesterday and liking pizza today does not make me a hypocrite. Claiming to hate pizza while devouring it, or claiming to love pizza while growing furious at the sight of it would be hypocritical. > > Believing something today that I did not believe yesterday does not make me a hypocrite, no matter how quickly I make that transition. > [@Miller](#): > > No, hypocrisy means saying one thing and acting in the opposite fashion _at the same time_. Changing your mind about something is not hypocritical. While that’s true when looking at the textual definition, from outside appearances both are the same. What would you assume if you liked that person? Oh, yeah. He changed his mind. And if you didn’t like that person? Well, now he’s a liar and probably a hypocrite, no matter Webster’s take on it. (And, if the story is media worthy, it’ll be ‘hypocrite’ all the way to drive sensationalism and sales.) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/51 "2013-11-03T17:39:01Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > With the benefit of being French, which means I haven’t been indoctrinated to admire Washington, I’ve no belief that this man was exceptionally moral, not even very commited to freedom, except for himself and the small subset of people similar to him. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised to learn that he despised the common people too, for instance (of course, you’re free to enlightnen me if I’m wrong). You were the one who duped her, weren’t you? Here’s the thing about Washington and the other slaveholders, as I see it, and probably as they saw it. If you want to launch a revolution, or be a political leader or whatever, you need money. And if all your money is tied up in your land and the slaves to work the land, then there’s no profit in it to set your slaves free. Putting aside any moral questions, you’re talking about a lot of money here. What are they supposed to do? Impoverish themselves? And for people they think are their racial inferiors in the first place? I mean, morality is one thing, but there’s money involved. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/52 "2013-11-03T17:45:25Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Here’s the thing about Washington and the other slaveholders, as I see it, and probably as they saw it. If you want to launch a revolution, or be a political leader or whatever, you need money. And if all your money is tied up in your land and the slaves to work the land, then there’s no profit in it to set your slaves free. Putting aside any moral questions, you’re talking about a lot of money here. What are they supposed to do? Impoverish themselves? And for people they think are their racial inferiors in the first place? I mean, morality is one thing, but there’s money involved. That doesn’t actually speak very well of them. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/53 "2013-11-03T17:48:25Z")
Revolutionaries have the morality they can afford. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/54 "2013-11-03T17:52:07Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > While that’s true when looking at the textual definition, from outside appearances both are the same. No, it’s really not. > [@](#): > > What would you assume if you liked that person? Oh, yeah. He changed his mind. And if you didn’t like that person? Well, now he’s a liar and probably a hypocrite, no matter Webster’s take on it. (And, if the story is media worthy, it’ll be ‘hypocrite’ all the way to drive sensationalism and sales.) No, that’s not remotely what I’d think. Using your earlier example, if someone had previously been spouting anti-gay rhetoric, and suddenly starts promoting gay rights, I’m not going to think, “Ha, what a hypocrite,” I’m going to think, “Hey, there’s a guy who’s willing to examine his preconceptions and abandon them in the face of sufficient evidence.” That’s a good thing. That’s something that should be encouraged. If it were the opposite, and someone who used to be pro-gay turned rabidly homophobe? Still not a hypocrite! I’d feel some mixture of pity and disgust for the guy, but he wouldn’t be a hypocrite, because - again - changing your mind is not the same thing as hypocrisy. It’s not even in the same zip code. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/55 "2013-11-04T22:29:40Z")
It is interesting to see how American culture is so drastic in its condemnation of other cultures which are different and of its own past culture. Those slave holders were so selfish and immoral! And yet American culture today compared to other advanced, western cultures, is extremely individualistic, selfish, greedy, violent. And no one seems to feel the disconnect. A culture where people have no guaranteed health care and if you can’t afford it that’s your problem, not mine. A culture where lots of people are locked up in prisons and society is just fine with that. A culture extremely xenophobic which wants to keep others out at all costs because they might depress wages. No one cares if those people are starving. That’s their problem. Just don’t let them in. Keep them out or lock them up. Forever if need be. And yet you feel the need to condemn what others did centuries ago? Their lack of empathy. Why? How do you think your selfish attitudes of today will stand up to judgment a couple centuries from now? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/56 "2013-11-04T22:38:49Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > It is interesting to see how American culture is so drastic in its condemnation of other cultures which are different and of its own past culture. Those slave holders were so selfish and immoral! > > And yet American culture today compared to other advanced, western cultures, is extremely individualistic, selfish, greedy, violent. And no one seems to feel the disconnect. A culture where people have no guaranteed health care and if you can’t afford it that’s your problem, not mine. A culture where lots of people are locked up in prisons and society is just fine with that. A culture extremely xenophobic which wants to keep others out at all costs because they might depress wages. No one cares if those people are starving. That’s their problem. Just don’t let them in. Keep them out or lock them up. Forever if need be. > > And yet you feel the need to condemn what others did centuries ago? Their lack of empathy. Why? How do you think your selfish attitudes of today will stand up to judgment a couple centuries from now? Has it ever occurred to you that plenty of the Americans willing to make moral judgments about historical figures might also be critical of the aspects of American society that you mention here? As someone who moved to the United States as an adult, and who makes a living teaching American history to university students, i have a personal and a professional interest in trying to understand the United States in all of its messy complexity and all of its apparent contradictions. It’s difficult, but i do my best. And one of the things that often irks me most about some non-Americans, including some of my own acquaintances from places like Australia and the United Kingdom and Canada, is the way that they lump all Americans in together, as if every individual among the 300-or-so million people living in the United States thinks the same way. It’s even more surprising when this sort of stupid generalization comes from someone who has been on these very message boards for nigh on 13 years, and who has seen myriad Americans discussing the very issues that you raised in your post. If you don’t realize, after more than a decade on this board, that the United States is not monolithic in its ideals and beliefs and politics, then you should probably just throw in the towel now, because you’re never going to get it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/57 "2013-11-04T23:37:46Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > IIRC, at the time the Constitution was ratified, many people thought slavery would die out of its own accord, or could be phased out once the Constitution was ratified and the country was running smoothly. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which made slave-labor-based cotton plantations far more practical and profitable and gave the whole institution of slavery a new lease on life. I think this is the key point. Most of the founding fathers recognized that slavery was morally questionable at best. But they also recognized it would be a difficult problem to solve. So their attitude was essentially _“We’ll work on gaining independence and building a government. We’ll put off solving slavery for a decade or two until things settle down.”_ Obviously not the most morally enlightened position but you can sympathize some if you try to be objective. Slavery had been around for millennia; they didn’t feel an overwhelming urgency to tackle it right now. And slavery was on the decline in their era. They hoped it would continue to shrink and become an easier problem to solve as a result. They didn’t anticipate that there would be a revival of slavery in the early nineteenth century. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/58 "2013-11-05T00:45:07Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > You were the one who duped her, weren’t you? I don’t understand the intended meaning of this sentence. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/59 "2013-11-05T01:38:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > On balance, no. If there’d been no compromise, the result would be no United States. Slaves in slave-states would still be enslaved, just under a different federal regime. The option to prohibit importation of slaves after 1808 would not exist, meaning there’d be more slaves, and each would be worth less and thus more expendible. > > Nitpick: “immoral”, not “amoral”. No, slave holders had an incentive to end the importation of slaves to protect the value of the slaves they already held. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830/60 "2013-11-05T03:51:45Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No, slave holders had an incentive to end the importation of slaves to protect the value of the slaves they already held. …And prospective slave buyers, as well as importers and brokers, and those who were marginal competitors at agriculture, had an incentive to keep the imports coming in. Article 1, Section 9 was a compromise, just like the 3/5ths Compromise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-concessions-made-by-the-founding-fathers-morally-reprehensible/672830.md?page=4)